Do you have the hope of going to heaven

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not have a hope of going to heaven (when I speak of "heaven" I mean the spiritual abode/realm where God lives).

- Do you personally entertain the hope of going to heaven to spend eternity with God when you die? (if this question is too personal I respect if you do not want to share this information)

- If so, do you believe such a literal spiritual realm exists?

- Do you believe that Jesus is presently in heaven where God exists?



* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 238 by OnceConvinced]

YOU said that those certain verses "screamed trinity" to you, even though there were only two. So saying that "two" is a TRINITY is as unreasonable as someone saying the trinity means "1 X 1 X 1." Your arguments don't add up. Pun intended.

But far be it from me to suggest to anyone that they don't have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

I guess the holy spirit revealed different things to me as a Christian than he does to you and Tam now. But I have come to expect that when it comes to the holy spirit.

[William]

[Replying to post 259 by JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps if you answer my questions, you might also include why that you think otherwise (if you do)?

Why I think that would be the case has to do with it normally being the case. Children often have the characteristics of their parents.

[ttruscott]

I did not study my way to this doctrine.

That much is evident.

My stance on my use of the Bible is Scriptural with dozens of verses you refused to consider and not one verse that can be construed to prove PCE is unbiblical - no need to get snarky...

Are you encouraging me to trust in study of words:
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; above the Spirit? Or too actually debate for content? 2 TIMOTHY 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit but to the subverting of the hearers.

I was told in the Spirit to accept it and I do, unproven as it is.

Are you aware there are both good and bad spirits?

You are teasing, right?

Rom 8:31 What shall we say about such wonderful things as these? If God is for us, who can ever be against us? 32 Since he did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, wont he also give us everything else?

Anyone who has faith in GOD need not huddle under the umbrella of ideas of those in fear of being led astray...

Eating is the communion of ideas in the Bible: Rev 10:9 And I went to the angel and said, Give me the small scroll. Take it and eat it, he said. It will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey. 10 So I took the small scroll from the angels hand and ate it; and it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned bitter. This is not a real book he ate but the learning of the contents of this book.

This is repeated in Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and EAT with that person, and they with me. This means He will communicate His doctrine and plans for us...an ordinary thing to many Christians.

John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. What if this is not an allegory but a real thing as so many Christians claim...

Is your umbrella maybe shielding you from such things? Have you heard His voice? Have you experienced anything that could be called Him coming to you and sharing ideas in communion? It is an ordinary thing to many who also accept that GOD has already defeated all demons.

[JehovahsWitness]

I did not study my way to this doctrine.

That much is evident.

My stance on my use of the Bible is Scriptural

Well that is irrelevant, you have already said you did not study your way to this doctrine, so why are you inviting me to study scripture with this regard? If you didn't get it by study why should I?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 261 by OnceConvinced]

I guess the holy spirit revealed different things to me as a Christian than he does to you and Tam now. But I have come to expect that when it comes to the holy spirit.

[center]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Holy Spirit !!![/center]

[Monta]

[Replying to post 238 by OnceConvinced]

YOU said that those certain verses "screamed trinity" to you, even though there were only two. So saying that "two" is a TRINITY is as unreasonable as someone saying the trinity means "1 X 1 X 1." Your arguments don't add up. Pun intended.

But far be it from me to suggest to anyone that they don't have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

I guess the holy spirit revealed different things to me as a Christian than he does to you and Tam now. But I have come to expect that when it comes to the holy spirit.

It is according to reception.

Also like to comment on 'people believe whatever they choose to believe'.
I do not see it like that. I see the keyboard because it is in front of me. People have inner way of perceiving certain things about God to be true and they are willing to accept it as true. Same way we have this inner knowing that my wife/husband loves me. We do not need scientific books to prove it to us.
You can choose to ignore it but the thing is you still see it as true.

[tam]

Peace to you OC!


You don't need to respond if you are not interested in defending the trinity doctrine. No worries. I am going to respond to some things you said though.

[

quote="OnceConvinced"]

(As an illustration to answer your question though... Pharaoh in Egypt placed Joseph in charge of all His belongings. Joseph was second only to Pharaoh. If one wanted something from Pharaoh, then one needed to go to Joseph. Joseph was to be honored as one honored Pharaoh. If one was dishonoring Joseph, one would be dishonoring Pharaoh.

As a more modern example perhaps, an oil tycoon decides it is time for his son to take over, inherit. So he puts his son in charge of everything. You think he does not expect all of this employees, partners, etc, to treat the son he has placed in charge with the same respect and honor as they treated him? If one of them tries to come to him, would he not send them to his son, whom he has placed in charge?)

We should not be taking the father/son aspect too literally. If you are to say that Jesus is a literal son of God then that must mean he had a mother. This would mean that there was some female God there who mothered Jesus, as he existed before he came to earth as a human.

I was answering your specific question:

What do you think honouring the son as you would the father would mean?

Honoring the father as you would honor the son does not mean that they are the same person. As shown in the examples above.

So that verse cannot be used to prove the trinity or to prove that the Father and the Son are the same being (or aspects of the same being if that is where you are going with it).

(If Jesus is the human version of God, what version of God are you suggesting the Father is?)

Did I say Jesus was the human version of God? If I did, then I did not mean it that way.

Okay.

Anyone who doubts the trinity needs to look at an earlier verse in John 14. Verse 6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Where is the third person in this verse?

If you want to exclude the holy spirit as part of the trinity then go right ahead. I don't really care. I did quote a verse though where Jesus spoke as though he were the holy spirit.

I'm not excluding the holy spirit as part of the trinity. I am saying none of the verses listed suggest that there is a trinity to begin with.

And since Christ IS the Holy Spirit (as you, yourself, have suggested)... then that makes one person; not two. The Holy Spirit is not a third person.


(There is of course holy spirit - the breath, blood, seed of Jah; the water of life - which Christ gives to whomever He chooses as has been given to Him without end by His Father. But that is not a person.)

Verse 9 also states:
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

Again he is showing us here that he is part of the trinity.

How does 'he who has seen me has seen my Father'... depict a trinity, when a trinity requires three?

Why is there a problem that these verses don't include the holy spirit? The holy spirit is mentioned in other scriptures.

Because a verse that does not mention three cannot be used to demonstrate a trinity.

They are all off the table.

Vs 10:
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Once again a perfect example of the trinity.

A perfect example of the trinity would be three.

I think you are being pedantic. If there can be two who are one god, then that tells me that a third could be part of that one god. These verses, to me are evidence of the trinity. That is why they scream out trinity to me.

Well... I was just dealing with the trinity part.

The above is not an example that there are two who are one god either; unless you are suggesting that when Christ says that they (Him and His Father) will be in us and us in them... that He was saying that we were all going to be one god?

Verse 16-17 the holy spirit is mentioned. Then what does Jesus say in vs 18?
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Who is the comforter? The Holy spirit of course. He just mentioned him. Then he says I will come to you. Who is coming to you? The holy spirit. Jesus is speaking on behalf of the holy spirit too. Why? Because the holy spirit is also part of the trinity.

This is a tricky one because of the scribes.

It's not tricky as far as I'm concerned. You wanted your third? Well here you have it.

In fact, you said that this verse is describing Christ as being the Holy Spirit. Which makes one person. Him in the flesh and - after His death and resurrection - Him in the spirit.

Same person.

The scribes always personified holy spirit. But in fact, he/she/it are interchangeable, and the choice doctrine led to the choice of which pronoun to use.


This Holy Spirit sounds as though this is Christ - because Christ says later in the verse "I" will come to you. He is the Holy Spirit (He is both Holy and the Spirit, making Him the Holy Spirit.)

Ouila! Trinity!

But that doesn't describe a trinity. That describes Christ as the Spirit. Same person.

But there is also holy spirit (the water of Life) that Christ breathed upon His apostles (and breathes also others, but the apostles first), which is not a person, but the breath/blood/seed of Jah. Christ is the one who gives this holy spirit to whomever He chooses. This holy spirit is not a person.

Once again there's your third part of the trinity.

But this is not a person. This would be like saying my blood is a person, rather than simply being my blood.

Take the example of a human. Say me. I am Once Convinced. Let's say that I have
1) A spirit
2) a soul
3) a personality
4) an ego

Let's look at the spirit. It is me!
The soul. It is me!
The personality. It is me!
An ego. It is me!

So I am all four things and all these things are completely me.

Your spirit/soul/personality/ego... are not different persons in you. They are not persons at all, and they do not have different names (as Christ and God have).

God = the Father = Jahveh
Christ = the Son = Jaheshua

They are one (united), but they are their own persons; their own beings.

This makes three things... but only two of these things are PERSONS.

Actually now that I think about it I don't think it's right to describe them as three persons. They are not exactly persons. That is why they are not three separate gods.

Perhaps you have a different definition of trinity then. There are a few out there. The most common one describes three persons in one god.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

[Replying to post 238 by OnceConvinced]

YOU said that those certain verses "screamed trinity" to you, even though there were only two. So saying that "two" is a TRINITY is as unreasonable as someone saying the trinity means "1 X 1 X 1." Your arguments don't add up. Pun intended.

But far be it from me to suggest to anyone that they don't have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

I guess the holy spirit revealed different things to me as a Christian than he does to you and Tam now. But I have come to expect that when it comes to the holy spirit.

Did the holy spirit reveal that to you or did you learn it from men?


Peace to you!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 238 by OnceConvinced]

YOU said that those certain verses "screamed trinity" to you, even though there were only two. So saying that "two" is a TRINITY is as unreasonable as someone saying the trinity means "1 X 1 X 1." Your arguments don't add up. Pun intended.

But far be it from me to suggest to anyone that they don't have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

I guess the holy spirit revealed different things to me as a Christian than he does to you and Tam now. But I have come to expect that when it comes to the holy spirit.

Did the holy spirit reveal that to you or did you learn it from men?


Peace to you!

tam, let's say OC says the Holy Spirit revealed the trinity to him. What can you do or say to convince ME otherwise?
Now, let's say OC says he learned about the Holy Spirit from other men, and that those other men say they had a revelation from the Spirit/God/Jesus/whatever. What can you do or say to convince ME otherwise?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 268 by tam]



[center]
Another false dichotomy.[/center]

Did the holy spirit reveal that to you or did you learn it from men?

You forgot that he might have invented it himself, all on his very own without any help from anyone.

That would be a third option.