What do you think of Incest and the Bible?

[mattymatt79]

St. Thomas and St. Augustine were so influential in translation and interpretation of the bible, eliminating commentary from them would be nothing more than your dislike for Catholicism.

Christian religions are monotheistic in nature. One God in three persons does not create a new godlike power nor a 2nd or 3rd god. 

[Annella]

St. Thomas and St. Augustine were so influential in translation and interpretation of the bible, eliminating commentary from them would be nothing more than your dislike for Catholicism.

Christian religions are monotheistic in nature. One God in three persons does not create a new godlike power nor a 2nd or 3rd god.  

There is no such thing as God in 3 bodily persons.  The word "trinity" is not in the Bible.  There will only be ONE sitting on the throne.  God has many manifestations.  He is God in Creation, Son in Redemption, and the Holy Spirit in quickening/renewing.  The same God.  The burning bush to Moses, Pillar of fire, Pillar of smoke, etc.  All manifestations, but the same God.

I use the King James Version of the Bible, Strong's Concordance (with Hebrew and Greek translations), various illustrated Bible dictionaries (Unger's is a favorite), and various Commentaries.  However, if I find any teachings contrary to the Word of God, I leave it alone.

Mattymatt, you are the one who quoted your Pope to lend credence to your stance.  I don't believe in the Pope. Doesn't mean I dislike him, you, or the family across the street.  I went another way.  Lets get back on topic shall we?

[constance312003]

well said annella- Keep doing the Lord's work

[jcribb16]

You are so right, constance! 

[amyrouse]

I was sitting reading the bible one night I read all the way through Noah and the Arc. Well In the days that God made Adam and Eve, he made other people, animals, day night, all life right? Well he found that the world was corrupt in the days of Noah and his family so he found favor in Noah and had the ark animals and Noah his wife, his sons and their wifes. My question is what happened when God only left these people isn't there incest in order to repopulate the world? Doesn't that mean that we are all related and descendents from Noah? So are we marrying our kin? I don't mean to offend anybody just a few questions I though would be good to clarify. 

Actually, god forgot to mention that there was someone else before Eve to be with adam. He created them equally. Lilith was adam's equal but she refuse to be on the bottom. Adam had a hissy fit & god banished Her to earth turned her into a demon. Talk about totally sexist! So, to get adam a wife that he could control, he created another wife using adam's rib. Therefore, yes, eve is a copy of a copy & not as good. A lower version of the original. Yes, this is Incest if your wife is made of a part of you. You might as well be saying that you're wife is your twin sister. This is why I can't believe in the bible. Contradiction after contradiction in every area. You don't need to watch murder, incest, cheating, crimes on tv or in the movies. Just open the bible & you get it all uncensored. LoL.
If I had to chose between the two women I'd be Lilith any day. Since eve took the wife deal; women have suffered every which way, from rape, abuse, dying in child birth, having to give birth, sub-slave to men. It's still happening in the Middle east.(More hidden in America) Men can do anything but if a woman looks at another man beside her husband in the middle east, they're stoned to death or thrown out. Men can go whoring anytime go, home & infect his wife with diseases but if a woman starts a new relationship after the husband died long ago, she is jailed, charged for adultery ;if she starts a new relationship with a new man. Adam didn't do women any favors. If he was soooo lonely, god should have had him mate with the snake. LOL, GO LILITH!!!!!

I tend to disagree with you on your "go Lilith" stance.  Out of her anger, Lilith took it upon herself to kill children in their sleep, hence the term lullabyes.  I'd choose Eve any day.  By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she chose knowledge and the possibility of pain and death over ignorance and immortality.  Human beings cannot have both knowledge and immortality since it would make them too like g-d.  Given the choice, regardless of anyone wants to call it sin, I'd eat the apple myself.  This is where we see the strength in women... in their ability to make the difficult choices.  This is why all the Eve-blame disappoints me.

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/Lilith/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene0.htm

On the other hand, though, we can't blame it all on men, either.  The importance of our evolving as a human race is to take responsibility for our own actions rather than find someone to place the blame on.  Quite honestly, the "go Lilith" viewpoint actually seems in line with Valerie Solanis and her S.C.U.M. Manifesto.  There is enough bigotry, classism, sexism, racism, etc enough to be getting on with without adding more to the mix.

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

[Annella]

well said annella- Keep doing the Lord's work

Thank you Constance.

[jordandog]

So the word 'Trinity' is NOT in the Bible, who cares? It all comes down to what you believe is 'correct' vs what others believe is 'correct'. Just because you/anyone might disagree and think that your interpretation is "the only one that is valid because of how YOU choose to interpret scripture in your particular sect" does NOT make it truth. The following is courtesy of CARM - a site that is quite willing to be openminded and not locked into the tunnel vision that far too many are.

Some critics of the Trinity doctrine claim that since the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible it isn't true.  Furthermore, some assert that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have stated the doctrine clearly.

First of all, it is illogical to claim that since the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible that its concept is not taught therein.  This kind of objection usually demonstrates a prejudice against the teaching of the Trinity.  Instead, the person should look to God's word to see if it is taught or not.

Second, there are many biblical concepts that people believe in that don't have a specific word describing them used in the Bible.  For example, the word "bible" is not found in the Bible, but we use it anyway to describe the Bible.  Likewise, "omniscience" which means "all-knowing," "omnipotence" which means "all-powerful," and "omnipresence" which means "present everywhere," are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God.  We don't have to see a specific word in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true.

Following are other words that the Bible does not use but the concepts are mentioned. (my words here -I note there are many that have been written to death and used as 'point makers' by certain posters.):

•Atheism is the teaching that there is no God.  "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).
•Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character.  Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.
•Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh.  Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1,14).
•Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:eight).
•Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18).
So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.  Furthermore, to say that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture, is also an invalid argument.  Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid.  Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear.  Take a look at the book of Revelation.  It contains many things that are cryptic that must be interpreted after examining all of the Bible.  Even then, there are disagreements as to what some things mean.  Yet, we know that the truths there are true whether or not we discover them.

Nevertheless, there are scriptures that demonstrate a Trinitarian aspect.

•Matt. 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,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
•Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.  7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
•Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

*This post might fall under off-topic, but I have seen the 'non-trinity' argument one too many times.*

[queenofnines]

Hi jordandog!   

[lvstephanie]

First of all...what Bible are you reading from, and what are you using to translate into Hebrew (Old Testament)? Your post is correct in one sense that Adam and Eve were equal (humankind).  Throughout the Bible, it will refer to the masculine word of "man" which in the Old Hebrew is humankind (one meaning) which includes woman also.  ou do need the Hebrew translation (for the OT) and Greek (for the NT).  One word can have different meanings considering what context it was written in and how it pertained to how the word was being used, or conversational context in scripture.  If you study the Bible long enough, you will find that scripture interprets scripture.

However, in the 27th verse, you have added "a" as in He created "a" male and "a" female.  It doesn't say that in the Bible (KJV).  It says male and female created He them.

I am not Episcopalian / Anglican so I don't go entirely with KJV which was commissioned by a King to follow certain edicts of the Church of England in its translation. I'd rather go with more modern translations that go back to the original language and try to translate it without any interpretation, so that you can see the ambiguities (like the definition of "adam") and allow yourself or other theologians make the interpretations based on context and other writings / scripture. For the "quotes" I was trying to translate the Hebrew Mechanical translation of Genesis (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/genesis/index.html) using their word morphologies as well as other translations found on the web. You are correct that the original Hebrew did not have the indefinite article "a", but rather is literally translated as: "and He will fatten Elohiym at the 'ha-adam' in image Him in image Elohiym He did fatten at him male and female He did fatten at them." (where "fatten" means to fill as in to fill a person with life, and image as meaning a likeness or copy but not necessarily a physical picture). I was not trying to translate anything into Hebrew, rather using the original Hebrew in translation into English. The Hebrew word "adam" does indeed have more than a single definition, which is why you are correct in saying that you need to look at context and other writings in order to get a full interpretation. But even with that, their are still opposing theories as to what is the "correct" translation. There are factions within Christianity that try to show that God favors males over females (God originally created man and later created woman, Jesus was a male person, and Jesus' apostles were all male, etc.), which is why I'd rather point out the Hebrew word (which is masculine in its declaration -- a foreign concept in English, but in other languages there are masculine, feminine, and neutral nouns which get different grammatical rules applied to each) and show all of its possible meanings.

Lets keep men out of this like St Augustine, and St Thomas of Aquinas (who were they?) This sounds like another plug for Catholicism and I'm not Catholic nor choose to be, so I don't particularly accept the significance of their translations.  

Yes both of these theologians were Catholic, but that is because that was basically the only Christian religion at the time (at least for Augustine. For Thomas, Greek Orthodoxy was also practiced but not within the major European nations). Augustine of Hippo lived between 354-430 AD and was considered one of the most influential theologians in early Christianity. He was the one that originated our understanding and theories of "original sin", "divine grace", and "salvation". Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274 AD and was also a major theologian of his time. He brought Aristotle's teleological argument (an argument for the existence of a supreme being based upon the logical order of the natural world) into Christianity in his 5th proof of the existence of God when he wrote his "Summa Theologica". It is partially this reason why he is a proponent of Creationism "ex nihilo" and is inspiration for the modern "Intelligent Design" theories.

Since both came before the reformation of the Catholic Church and because their theological ideas / theories had a profound impact on the Christian church as a whole, I think their viewpoints are very important when discussing theology, and it was not meant as a way to inject Catholicism into the discussion. It would be like ignoring Mozart on a discussion of musical theory because "I don't listen to classical music".

[jordandog]

Hi jordandog!   

Hiya queen!! I decided I had kept my 'trap' shut far too long, only because I was not interested in getting into any more non-arguments , but have followed this and a few other topics. I've been VERY busy with work and had to recertify my DEA and practice licensing, so that took up more hours. I probably won't be back on FC all the way (which may be good news to some, jk), but will jump in when I can. I have missed you and others a whole lot!
(It's also been interesting to see the transference of feelings toward me directed at a couple others since I haven't posted in ages. I guess it doesn't matter who has the 'disagreeing mouth', just that they have one, eh? Things that make you go Hmmmm......)

[Annella]

First of all...what Bible are you reading from, and what are you using to translate into Hebrew (Old Testament)? Your post is correct in one sense that Adam and Eve were equal (humankind).  Throughout the Bible, it will refer to the masculine word of "man" which in the Old Hebrew is humankind (one meaning) which includes woman also.  ou do need the Hebrew translation (for the OT) and Greek (for the NT).  One word can have different meanings considering what context it was written in and how it pertained to how the word was being used, or conversational context in scripture.  If you study the Bible long enough, you will find that scripture interprets scripture.

However, in the 27th verse, you have added "a" as in He created "a" male and "a" female.  It doesn't say that in the Bible (KJV).  It says male and female created He them.

I am not Episcopalian / Anglican so I don't go entirely with KJV which was commissioned by a King to follow certain edicts of the Church of England in its translation. I'd rather go with more modern translations that go back to the original language and try to translate it without any interpretation, so that you can see the ambiguities (like the definition of "adam") and allow yourself or other theologians make the interpretations based on context and other writings / scripture. For the "quotes" I was trying to translate the Hebrew Mechanical translation of Genesis (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/genesis/index.html) using their word morphologies as well as other translations found on the web. You are correct that the original Hebrew did not have the indefinite article "a", but rather is literally translated as: "and He will fatten Elohiym at the 'ha-adam' in image Him in image Elohiym He did fatten at him male and female He did fatten at them." (where "fatten" means to fill as in to fill a person with life, and image as meaning a likeness or copy but not necessarily a physical picture). I was not trying to translate anything into Hebrew, rather using the original Hebrew in translation into English. The Hebrew word "adam" does indeed have more than a single definition, which is why you are correct in saying that you need to look at context and other writings in order to get a full interpretation. But even with that, their are still opposing theories as to what is the "correct" translation. There are factions within Christianity that try to show that God favors males over females (God originally created man and later created woman, Jesus was a male person, and Jesus' apostles were all male, etc.), which is why I'd rather point out the Hebrew word (which is masculine in its declaration -- a foreign concept in English, but in other languages there are masculine, feminine, and neutral nouns which get different grammatical rules applied to each) and show all of its possible meanings.

Lets keep men out of this like St Augustine, and St Thomas of Aquinas (who were they?) This sounds like another plug for Catholicism and I'm not Catholic nor choose to be, so I don't particularly accept the significance of their translations.  

Yes both of these theologians were Catholic, but that is because that was basically the only Christian religion at the time (at least for Augustine. For Thomas, Greek Orthodoxy was also practiced but not within the major European nations). Augustine of Hippo lived between 354-430 AD and was considered one of the most influential theologians in early Christianity. He was the one that originated our understanding and theories of "original sin", "divine grace", and "salvation". Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274 AD and was also a major theologian of his time. He brought Aristotle's teleological argument (an argument for the existence of a supreme being based upon the logical order of the natural world) into Christianity in his 5th proof of the existence of God when he wrote his "Summa Theologica". It is partially this reason why he is a proponent of Creationism "ex nihilo" and is inspiration for the modern "Intelligent Design" theories.

I have to disagree with you here, but Catholicism was not the only religion practiced, even though they tried to be. The Apostolic church that was formed on the Day of Pentecost, is still alive today. and flourishing.  In fact, many have tried to wipe it out, but God has always had a remnant.  While I understand your history lesson, it's wrong. The newer versions of the Bible are not the oldest.  The King James Version is one of the oldest, and coincides with the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran Caves in Israel near Engedi.  What is the difference of you saying your theologians like Augustine and Thomas are correct, but those writings of the Apostles in the new Testament are wrong?  While you knock KJV, you really should read what went into translating of the Word under his reign. There was no biased translation just for the Church of England.  

While the JKV Translation is further translated with a good Hebrew and Greek Concordance, we get a good quality of reasoning about what the Lord was trying to say.  Okay, you added an "a", which changed the whole meaning completely. Not trying to be nitpicky, but just that one letter changed the whole meaning of what could have been said. Do we know for sure that God made more people?  For the 4th time....uh...no.  Is it a Salvational issue?  Not really.  However, some things you have posted are actually spot on.  It is a masculine presentation, but on further study, it actually encompasses all of humanity...woman also. That's why studying gives us a greater understanding of what we are reading.  I haven't found anything in the KJV to contradict itself, even though it's been accused of such.  

I do need to ask this because I really don't know.  I was told that Catholics are discouraged to read the Bible, instead referred to books written by the Catholic church, and it's own saints as your interpretations of it?  I found this interesting. is this common practice?

Since both came before the reformation of the Catholic Church, and because their theological ideas / theories had a profound impact on the Christian church as a whole, I think their viewpoints are very important when discussing theology, and it was not meant as a way to inject Catholicism into the discussion. It would be like ignoring Mozart on a discussion of musical theory because "I don't listen to classical music"

Well, to be honest, I've studied your history and how the Catholic religion was founded.  While I reject your teachings and that Augustine and Thomas wrote other books about the existence of God, etc., doesn't mean that I don't agree with some of what you have to say.  Whatever impact they had, was on the Catholic church as a whole, not the Christian church.  I'm strictly Apostolic which adheres to the Apostles Doctrine in the Book of Acts.  I know the Catholic church teaches that they were the first Christian church, but history does not bear that out Biblically. If we want to see the very beginning of the church and the Law, it was given to the Hebrew children on Mount Siani, and then progressed from there.  The chosen people were the Jews, and through their bloodline was the Messiah born to cement the Christian church on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was poured out after Christ arose and left.  Telling them to return to Jerusalem and wait for the promise from on high (Holy Ghost).  Actually, Apostle Paul was the first Evangelist to found churches (after the Holy Ghost had been poured out) in his travels.

I know you have your "saint's" and statues of people that hold special honorable mention to you as a Catholic, but to others that are not Catholic....not so much.  People that lived and died for God, and the writings they left behind that are written in the Bible are our examples.  There are books written galore by this one or the other about how the Bible should say this or that, but actually it stands on it's own.  I can leave out Augustine and Thomas because to me they did not develop the Christian church.  They most certainly developed the Catholic church.  I'll give you that.

In the book of Acts, when the Apostles received the Holy Ghost, they spoke in tongues. Many churches teach that doesn't happen today because it was just for the Apostles.  The Catholic church says this also.  Well, people are still getting the Holy Ghost today with the same experience just like the Bible says.  It is for everyone.  I got it at 19. I've proved the Bible to be real in my life many times over.  Not just some of it, but all.  I can't uphold any religion, Minister, or movement of any kind that takes just a part of the Bible and not ALL of it.

[mattymatt79]

So because of your dislike of the Catholic church, you'll disregard what true historians wrote. That'd be like saying you think Aristotle was wrong because you dislike Greeks.

Catholics most certainly read the bible. And you'd be happy to know that if you went to mass every day for three years, you'd hear the ENTIRE bible read while at mass since the readings come strictly from the bible. The Christian churches come from The Holy Catholic Church.

"The church was founded in the early 1830's by Samuel Froehlich, a young seminary student in Switzerland, who had experienced a biblical conversion." Uhm 1830 that's not when Pentecost was. I'm seeing other websites saying founding in 1904 in Britain. I've read three sites now of different churches and all of them have different things listed as well as different beliefs.

That's my one major issue with Protostants, they claim they're the true church, yet there is major differences in between the churches let alone none of them are close to being the same with regards to dogma. Closest that I can find is the PCA that doesn't route itself in Anglican beliefs. The fact that Catholics have one church, that the mass no matter where you are in the world is the same mass at your local parish.

The KJV of the bible, is missing books. Luther when he wrote his version decided to eliminate the apocryphal books even though they've been found to be translated. It's been translated and translated and retranslated over and over and over again and you have your KJV. Pastors read what they want on a Sunday, and then talk about it in a sermon. There is no true head of it, so how can you even talk about Catholics being wrong with You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, with no head of it, how can there be a church? Jesus didn't go around to 10,000 plus people and say build it here or here or there.

Regardless, by eliminating what the doctors of the church wrote from even consideration just says about you that you'd rather eliminate good writings due to you thinking that Catholics as a whole are wrong.

Your thoughts on the Communion of Saints, is just wrong, we don't hold them above anyone else and the best way I can explain it to someone is this.

Say your mom or another loved one is sick, you would have no problem asking your congregation to pray for you would you? So you're saying that loved ones that have gone to Heaven no longer care about you? That they would no longer want to pray for your healing? That they would just rather live eternity not caring? All us as Catholics believe is that once a person has obtained the gift of being in Heaven, that they would continue to pray for us however; not being left to the finite limitations of earth. No where in that is praying directly to them and this includes Mary. Statues are just because they're beautiful things. God's house should be a beautiful place. Does it need to be? No, but does it make it prettier sure. Mass can be held anywhere, and believe me after being deployed to some of the far corners of the world, it has been anywhere.

[Annella]

So because of your dislike of the Catholic church, you'll disregard what true historians wrote. That'd be like saying you think Aristotle was wrong because you dislike Greeks.

Catholics most certainly read the bible. And you'd be happy to know that if you went to mass every day for three years, you'd hear the ENTIRE bible read while at mass since the readings come strictly from the bible. The Christian churches come from The Holy Catholic Church.

"The church was founded in the early 1830's by Samuel Froehlich, a young seminary student in Switzerland, who had experienced a biblical conversion." Uhm 1830 that's not when Pentecost was. I'm seeing other websites saying founding in 1904 in Britain. I've read three sites now of different churches and all of them have different things listed as well as different beliefs.

That's my one major issue with Protostants, they claim they're the true church, yet there is major differences in between the churches let alone none of them are close to being the same with regards to dogma. Closest that I can find is the PCA that doesn't route itself in Anglican beliefs. The fact that Catholics have one church, that the mass no matter where you are in the world is the same mass at your local parish.

The KJV of the bible, is missing books. Luther when he wrote his version decided to eliminate the apocryphal books even though they've been found to be translated. It's been translated and translated and retranslated over and over and over again and you have your KJV. Pastors read what they want on a Sunday, and then talk about it in a sermon. There is no true head of it, so how can you even talk about Catholics being wrong with You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, with no head of it, how can there be a church? Jesus didn't go around to 10,000 plus people and say build it here or here or there.

Regardless, by eliminating what the doctors of the church wrote from even consideration just says about you that you'd rather eliminate good writings due to you thinking that Catholics as a whole are wrong.

Your thoughts on the Communion of Saints, is just wrong, we don't hold them above anyone else and the best way I can explain it to someone is this.

Say your mom or another loved one is sick, you would have no problem asking your congregation to pray for you would you? So you're saying that loved ones that have gone to Heaven no longer care about you? That they would no longer want to pray for your healing? That they would just rather live eternity not caring? All us as Catholics believe is that once a person has obtained the gift of being in Heaven, that they would continue to pray for us however; not being left to the finite limitations of earth. No where in that is praying directly to them and this includes Mary. Statues are just because they're beautiful things. God's house should be a beautiful place. Does it need to be? No, but does it make it prettier sure. Mass can be held anywhere, and believe me after being deployed to some of the far corners of the world, it has been anywhere.

Oh no, you have it wrong.  True Historians?  True?  Historians are all good if they follow the Biblical lines, however some do not, and get out into false doctrine that you cannot recognize anything Biblical about it.  I study a lot of Jewish history and older scribes writings though, and they have lined up Biblically.  Uh, I came out of the Lutheran movement at 19 which is just a baby step away from being a Catholic.  Yes, some of the services and masses in that church were very similar to Catholic masses.  However, in the church I'm in today we don't even resemble the Catholic church and yes, shun their teachings of praying to statues, purgatory, worshipping saints, among other things.  I'm sorry, but I have seen you light candles in front of statues and pray to them.  Unless your a different sect that I haven't heard about.

If you have heard the Bible read all the way through at mass, then you should remember the Book of Acts.  The whole Book of Acts is the start of the Christian church.  The church was not started in the 1820's.  Maybe yours was, but mine started a long time before that. So your saying that the Pentecost in the Bible is not the start of the Christian church?  I rest my case.  Pentecost is Jewish, and still is a Jewish observance, and was, when Peter stood up and gave the message of redemption after they had all been filled with the Holy Ghost in the upper room (btw, Mary the mother of Jesus got the same Holy Ghost then).  That's how come there were so many from different languages there and heard the Glories of God spoken in their own tongue.  I'm only using the Day of Pentecost during that Biblical time when the Christian church got started. Yes, Jesus said Peter was the rock upon He would build His church.  Who stood up on the Day of Pentecost and gave the redemption message?  Peter!  However, Christ (who is God) is the Head of the church, and always was, and always will be......not Peter.  Peter got up and told them how to be saved after they were pricked (conviction) in their heart (Acts 3:37), then in Acts 2:38, came the plan of Salvation:  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  That was the start of the church after Blood redemption.  The early early church was the Tabernacle in the wilderness when God handed the Law to Moses and established the types and shadows of what was to come.

My grandmother's prayers that she prayed for me live forever. That I believe.  All the prayers that are said live forever before God.  However, when I pray for someone's healing, I bypass everyone else and enter into the Throne Room and talk straight to Jesus (who is God in bodily form).  I don't have to talk to a buffer between him and I.  Especially someone that has previously died. We don't know what their soul knows after death.  I know they are at rest.  I would no more waste my time talking to someone who died previously to get a message to God for me. The flesh of Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man who declares the Lord God bodily.  I'm His daughter and can boldly approach him with my petitions in prayer.  Neither do I repent, or tell my sins to any man on earth because there is no man on earth who can forgive sins.  I repent straight to God who is "just" to forgive my sins if I repent.  It's already been taken care of on Calvary with the Blood of Atonement.  There is no "penance" to perform, just forgiveness.

Oh I've heard the same thing that all the books in the Bible were not included.  They are adding to the Word of God, and the Bible says not to do that.  Other movements also do that. They have their own books and creeds and other philosophies that are just "out there", and there is no Biblical backing whatsoever in what they have introduced into their assemblies.  I've already had discussions about the book of Enoch, etc, etc.  Not pertinent to the Bible.  So your saying that God wasn't adept enough to get all the books of the Bible together, but forgot some. I don't buy it.

[JessieKateRose]

@MattyMatt: Seriously, she disagrees with whatever anyone says. Not worth bothering. She made it clear that she doesn't understand what evolution means, but she insists that it's not real. And she poked fun at other people's beliefs after whining about how Christians always get attacked on here and they're SO persecuted. You can find a better way to spend your time.

[Annella]

So the word 'Trinity' is NOT in the Bible, who cares? It all comes down to what you believe is 'correct' vs what others believe is 'correct'. Just because you/anyone might disagree and think that your interpretation is "the only one that is valid because of how YOU choose to interpret scripture in your particular sect" does NOT make it truth. The following is courtesy of CARM - a site that is quite willing to be openminded and not locked into the tunnel vision that far too many are.

Some critics of the Trinity doctrine claim that since the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible it isn't true.  Furthermore, some assert that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have stated the doctrine clearly.

First of all, it is illogical to claim that since the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible that its concept is not taught therein.  This kind of objection usually demonstrates a prejudice against the teaching of the Trinity.  Instead, the person should look to God's word to see if it is taught or not.

Second, there are many biblical concepts that people believe in that don't have a specific word describing them used in the Bible.  For example, the word "bible" is not found in the Bible, but we use it anyway to describe the Bible.  Likewise, "omniscience" which means "all-knowing," "omnipotence" which means "all-powerful," and "omnipresence" which means "present everywhere," are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God.  We don't have to see a specific word in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true.

Following are other words that the Bible does not use but the concepts are mentioned. (my words here -I note there are many that have been written to death and used as 'point makers' by certain posters.):

•Atheism is the teaching that there is no God.  "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).
•Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character.  Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.
•Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh.  Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1,14).
•Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:eight).
•Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18).
So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.  Furthermore, to say that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture, is also an invalid argument.  Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid.  Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear.  Take a look at the book of Revelation.  It contains many things that are cryptic that must be interpreted after examining all of the Bible.  Even then, there are disagreements as to what some things mean.  Yet, we know that the truths there are true whether or not we discover them.

Nevertheless, there are scriptures that demonstrate a Trinitarian aspect.

•Matt. 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,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
•Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.  7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
•Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

*This post might fall under off-topic, but I have seen the 'non-trinity' argument one too many times.*

Matthew 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:  When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost?  Isn't God the Father?  Yes, and the Holy Ghost also.

I Timothy 3:16  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.

Is this scripture about God or Jesus?  Both, they are ONE.

Colossions 2:8-10  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power.

So in Jesus body is the Godhead?  Yes!

II Corinthians 4:3-4  But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world (satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the Glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Jesus is the IMAGE of God?  Yes, looking at Jesus, is seeing God!

Colossians 1:12-15  Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us unto the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Jesus is the image of the invisible God?  Yes!

John 1:1-3  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made. V 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.

The Word was God, and was made flesh?  Yes!

Isaiah 43: 10-11  Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.  I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no Savior.

But I thought Jesus was our Savior?  God, who is Jesus, is our Savior.

Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The Name (singular) of the 3 titles.  I'm a mother, preacher, woman, teacher, Christian, daughter, etc., but none of those titles is my name.

Acts 2:37-38  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

That's why I'm baptized in Jesus Name, which is the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Revelation 4:2  And immediately I was in the Spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Only 1 throne, and only ONE sat upon it.

Revelation 1:17-18  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus saying he is the first and the last?  Only God is Alpha and Omega (read Isaiah 43:10-11 again above)


In laymens terms:  God made himself a body to reconcile man unto himself.  God is invisible, and when we see Jesus, we will see the image of God in heaven through Jesus Christ.  Or those who are saved.  When Jesus is noted as God's son, it is referring to his flesh.  Some scriptures refer to all 3 attributes (body, soul, spirit) but they are only in Jesus bodily....ONE GOD  the word Jesus in the hebrew means Jehovah Savior, or Jehovah has become our Salvation.

The revelation of who Jesus really is, is spiritual revelation.  You cannot separate the 3.  They crucified Jesus for a reason.  What was it?  Jesus basically told them he was God manifested in the flesh.  They would not accept Jesus as their Messiah, and crucified Him.

I have about 40 more scriptures I can list if anybody wants them.  I can't write them all out. This is a full 3 day seminar on the One God revelation.