Home » Posts tagged 'God'
Tag Archives: God
Based on factual allegations in the scripture, the Word, who was later introduced by God as His only begotten Son (John 1:1 in relation to John 1:14 and Matthew 3:17) and the Holy Spirit, who was introduced by Christ to the apostles as the one ‘to reveal the truth about God’ (John 14:16-17), are not co-equals of God, although they are inherent faculties of God.
Faculty in human is defined in http://dictionary.reference.com as an ability, natural or acquired, for a particular kind of action or one of the powers of mind, as memory, reason, or speech or an inherent capability of the body, e.g. the faculties of sight and hearing, a faculty for making friends easily or full possession of faculties despite an illness.
Naturally, in the case of God, His faculties are beyond the limits of human standards or cannot be adequately measured by using the same standards.
Similarly, however, the word and the spirit or intention of the word spoken by a person are not co-equals of a person who speaks, although they are faculties or parts of the essence of the person. (more…)
If you will ask Christ ‘if he is God’, what will you get as an answer? Surely, you will get a clear denial: “I am not God”. Because if he says he is God, then surely, you will no longer pray to the Father in heaven and know and love Him in return in frustration of the mission, which “the Word” who was god (John 1:1) and was sent to earth but waived such godship to be transformed to human being to fulfill it by himself.
Secondly, if he says he is God, surely, he will be usurping the Godship of the Father in heaven, who was with the Word in the beginning as stated in John 1:1.(In the beginning The Word already existed: The Word was with God, and the Word was God).
Logically, thus, there will be a need to re-write the verse in substance to “In the end, the false Christ is the only God”. Do you like it?
Remember, there is only one God.
Thirdly, the logical implication if Christ on his return is granted Godship by everybody is that despite they don’t yet deserve to be in company of God because of their sinful way, everybody will be technically elevating their status. (more…)
Constitutionally, Filipinos do not love God but love the sun and the three stars. This is so because they constitutionally consecrate and honor these images, which is a manifestation of loving. Since their idolatrous consecration is in blatant violation of the second commandment of God, then Filipinos cannot be logically said to be loving God.
The basis of this proposition is the preamble in relation to Section 1 of Article XVI of 1987 Philippine Constitution, stating as follows:
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. (1987 Constitution preamble)
Section 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law. (Section 1, Article XVI of the same Constitution)
If you try to connect the said constitutional provisions to the character of God that was manifested when He said:
I alone am the Lord your God. No other god may share my glory, I will not let idols share my phrase. (Isaiah 42:8, TEV)
Contrary to beliefs of most Christians, the crucifixion of Christ is proof enough that he is not God. On the other hand, are you not risking yourself if you keep on insisting Jesus is God? Because by doing so, you are logically serving a FALSE GOD and forgetting the Entity who was with the Word (who became human being in the person of Christ) stated in John 1:1, which also stresses that ‘the Word was with God’.
Are you not scared if you forget God who was with the Word?
Also, are you trying to demote God by technically implying that humanity can crucify God, which is based on a ‘created crucified the Creator’ type of syllogism? Is it proper? Who are you by the way? Are you not very ambitious to imply technically that human can crucify God?
This article is a sequel to “Grammatical error in ‘Jesus is God’ doctrine“,which emphasizes the use of past tense indicative mood of be, which is “was’ in John 1:1 stating also that the Word was God. Said verse simply logically emphasizes that ‘the Word that became flesh’ is no longer God, when he lived among us. (more…)
Are you sure that as Filipinos, you really loved God? Assuming your answer is ‘yes’ but asked again with the same question, will you say ‘yes’? How about asking you for the third time, will your answer be the same?
Truly, if for the third time your answer is yes, then you are like St. Peter, who promised not to deny Christ but later denied him three times despite Christ was about to suffer in the hands of the Romans and Jews.
Filipinos are thus logically like St. Peter,who can not be trusted on his words that he will not deny Christ, in the same way that Filipinos can not be trusted on their words alleging that they loved God.
What is the basis of the above proposition?
The basis is the preamble in relation to Section 1 of Article XVI of 1987 Philippine Constitution, stating as follows: (more…)
Roman Catholic theologians and some alleged Christian preachers miserably failed in grammar when they failed to consider the use of past tense indicative mood of be, which is “was’ in John 1:1, which simply logically emphasizes that ‘the Word that became flesh’ is no longer God, when he lived among us.
Rather than grammatically acknowledging “‘was” as it is, they misinterpreted the phrase utilizing in effect the third person singular present indicative of be, which is ‘is’. In other words, they in effect revised the phrase through deceptive indoctrination into “the Word is God” or specifically, “the Word ‘that became flesh’ is God”.
The verses related to the issue are as follows:
In the beginning The Word already existed: The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2From the very beginning The Word was with God. 3Through him God made all things, not one thing in all creation was made without him. 4The Word was the source of life and this life brought light to people. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out. (John 1:1-5,TEV)
14The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father’s only Son. (John 1:14, TEV)
How does incest relate to the discussion on ‘holy?’ trinity doctrine? Before fully discussing the issue, let’s have some preliminary discussions on ‘holy? trinity’ and ‘mother of god’ concepts.
Previously, in “Any factual basis for ‘Mother of God’ doctrine?‘ article, trinity doctrine as basis of ‘mother of god’ concept was discussed, being an invalid proposition, because it is merely based on opinion and not on facts.
Considering that the facts in issue are personal to God, Christ and Mother Mary, only their factual allegations are material in settling any issue that may arise from them. In the scripture however, it is clear that neither of the three mentioned facts related to the concepts.
Therefore, any argument to support the concept would simply fall apart due to utter lack of factual basis.
Firstly, Giuseppe Pinto is incidentally exposing the “holy lies” of the alleged church in a Christmas mass when, referring to Pope Francis as ‘he”, he said to Yolanda survivors: “you know how much he cares for you”.
Did Mr. Pinto ever see Pope Francis immediately before he prepared his message for the survivors to know how the Pope really felt?
And assuming that he was able to measure the feelings of the Pope, was he able to know the “knowledge” on the part of Yolanda survivors “how much Pope Francis really cares?
How did Mr. Pinto know it? Was there any possibility for him to talk to all the attendees in the mass?
Secondly, he uttered the words: “God is with us”. Was he talking as a witness to have seen or heard God? If he was not able to see or heard God, what is his credibility in uttering the words?
Thirdly, he refers to Pope Francis as the “Holy (more…)
An alleged church as a ‘depository‘ just like a bank? Why, is God’s forgiveness similar to “money” that is being deposited? And God is depositing his forgiveness in a church? Church people, do you agree? Does forgiveness had to be deposited?
But because nobody has the bank book to withdraw the forgiveness, theoretically, it will be withdrawn instead by the depositor Himself. In such a case, what will happen to alleged church people? Will they be forgiven if no available forgiveness can be withdrawn from the depository?
Based on the above tests on Pope Francis’ statement, obviously something is wrong with how the words “depository” and “God’s forgiveness” were used. More so, as regards the use of word “church”.
With all due respect to Roman Catholics and those who do not like criticisms against the Pope and the Catholic priests, this article is merely raising an issue against the pronouncement of those who are supposed to use “The Name” of God properly and not in vain. (more…)