How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[Unveiled Artist]

Here go since I have nothing else better to do.

1. God the creator (Genesis 1:1)
2. Word of god (Commandments)
3. God gave the word/the law to his people (The whole of Exodus)
4. People didn't listen (Everywhere in the OT)

6. Since people didn't listen, god made his law/message (law of moses) flesh (John 1:14). It became a new law (love neighbor and creator)

7. So he (this message/law or Word) can "dwell among people" (Verse above) and present this new law on behalf of his father: love god and love brother.

In order for people to participate in this law/word/incarnated-christ (above), they need to ask for salvation (John 3:16). In doing so, those who believe in christ (the word/law/incarnation) will live with his father forever.

One needs to go through the incarnation to get to the father.

Trinity "a state of being three; a group of three things" means that the father/creator, savior/christ (per above), and spirit (love/grace/and all of that) are one. They cannot be separated. They work together for all of the above.

The idea is that if you made jesus human, he no longer can save humanity. Since all denominations do not see him as a sinful human, and god is not of sin, there is an interconnection between the two. Call it duality, unity, trinity, relationship, the idea is still the same.

Don't know why one is right or wrong but no one never challenged me to this perspective just the ones they say over and over or highlighted.

 

[Soapy]

Here go since I have nothing else better to do.

1. God the creator (Genesis 1:1)
2. Word of god (Commandments)
3. God gave the word/the law to his people (The whole of Exodus)
4. People didn't listen (Everywhere in the OT)

6. Since people didn't listen, god made his law/message (law of moses) flesh (John 1:14). It became a new law (love neighbor and creator)

7. So he (this message/law or Word) can "dwell among people" (Verse above) and present this new law on behalf of his father: love god and love brother.

In order for people to participate in this law/word/incarnated-christ (above), they need to ask for salvation (John 3:16). In doing so, those who believe in christ (the word/law/incarnation) will live with his father forever.

One needs to go through the incarnation to get to the father.

Trinity "a state of being three; a group of three things" means that the father/creator, savior/christ (per above), and spirit (love/grace/and all of that) are one. They cannot be separated. They work together for all of the above.

The idea is that if you made jesus human, he no longer can save humanity. Since all denominations do not see him as a sinful human, and god is not of sin, there is an interconnection between the two. Call it duality, unity, trinity, relationship, the idea is still the same.

Don't know why one is right or wrong but no one never challenged me to this perspective just the ones they say over and over or highlighted.

Please don’t take notice of sojourner, no matter what proof you show him he will still say you haven’t shown him anything.

I don’t ‘fully’ agree with what you say but you got some part right.

 

[Soapy]

sojourner keeps asking me to present evidence of Jesus in the Old Testament and even after I told him that there is none he keeps insinuating that I’m saying there is snd then further threatens a demand on KD to show him ... show him what I agree I said was not there.., oh boy!! He thinks he’s doing psychology on me not knowing that psychology is exactly my study zone.. oh boy oh boy... man o man... they still breed this type???

 

[Soapy]

sojourner, there is no trinity in the Torah and hence there is no Jesus - except by future reference as the ‘Seed of the Woman’.

This seed of the woman is a reference, itself, to a second, and last, Adam.

This second/Last Adam is a reference to a human Being created in the image of a God and who is both holy and sinless.

You will see that in the day if his creation, and up until he sinned, the first human Being, named Adam, was both holy and sinless... and followed the commands of Almighty God, the only true God.

He was created, ‘in the image of God’, meaning with attributes as I outlined before to you.

Thus Adam was also called, ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38) which reflects his very ‘sonship’ of following the commands of the Father God.

And likewise, Jesus Christ is called, ‘Son of God’... why? Because he too, follows the commands of his creator, Father God.

And further, the Holy angel Spirit are also called, ‘Sons of God’.. why? Because they completely follow the commands of their creator, Father God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please don’t take notice of sojourner, no matter what proof you show him he will still say you haven’t shown him anything.

I don’t ‘fully’ agree with what you say but you got some part right.

Thanks. It depends on if you're trinitarian or not, really. Trinitarians see incarnation and creator the same. Non-trinitarians do not. Yet, they both have the same point of view because there is the same passion, the same goal, and the same jesus christ which both believe is a sinless person.

I'm not sure why he can't be a full incarnation unless trinitarians define incarnation as one with sin. That would mean Hebrews is off. If incarnation is not sin, that would make a reflection of its source which is not sinless as well. However, it depends on the christian if he wants to see the relationship as a reflection of his father or the father himself.

Either or, I'm not sure why it would be somewhat right. It really depends on your point of view or opinion. People tell me I am right or wrong but never give me a new perspective and support on why I am wrong. No one has challenged me on it.

 

[Soapy]

Thanks. It depends on if you're trinitarian or not, really. Trinitarians see incarnation and creator the same. Non-trinitarians do not. Yet, they both have the same point of view because there is the same passion, the same goal, and the same jesus christ which both believe is a sinless person.

I'm not sure why he can't be a full incarnation unless trinitarians define incarnation as one with sin. That would mean Hebrews is off. If incarnation is not sin, that would make a reflection of its source which is not sinless as well. However, it depends on the christian if he wants to see the relationship as a reflection of his father or the father himself.

Either or, I'm not sure why it would be somewhat right. It really depends on your point of view or opinion. People tell me I am right or wrong but never give me a new perspective and support on why I am wrong. No one has challenged me on it.

The so-called ‘incarnation’ is not scriptural. Trinitarians simply misrepresent what God said and make up their own storyline.

God said He would:

• send a saviour, His Servant

whom:

• He chose

and on whom:

• He would put His Spirit

This Servant is to be the fulfilment of what God spoke in the beginning, ipso facto, the very word of God... that the Saviour would be ‘Seed of the Woman’.

We see this fulfilment exactly as God spoke, exactly to his word..,

• God put flesh on the bones of his promise :
• God’s very word came true!
• God’s word in flesh!

This is what trinity gets so wrong. They confuse ‘word of God became flesh’ with the term, ‘incarnation’... they invented the term for their own convenience.

Any right-minded person can see that the trinity is broken if the trinity logic is followed. It implies that the inseparable threesome God separated off one of its inseparable self and became a human Being in the flesh...

But how does an Almighty God split itself (Himself?) when it’s ideology is that it is not composed of parts!!??

Moreover, this split off ‘God’ died and was resurrected by the senior God who sat him down next to him.., but the incarnated one is supposed to be ‘God’ whom he is sitting next to... despite the senior God saying that ‘beside me there is no God’!!

And, after being given power from the senior God, the lesser God was able to do things the senior God could do all along...

And eventually, the lesser god takes pride of place on a human throne to rule over what the lesser god supposed to have created - a minor kingdom in the house of his greater Father God’s greater kingdom.

How about this:

• An only God creates worshippers as human Beings
• These human Beings are physical representations of His spirit self
• They have knowledge in mind of him and thus glorify him in the wonder of his creation
• The creation is greater than humans even imagine and yet to find out
• But the first human, the Father of all following humans, sins.., he was to rule over the creation that he lives in but had now lost his place.
• The creator God is displeased and offers a solution: if another human Being gives his life as a sacrifice and dies for the salvation of all humans, then God will relent
• Such a human would be rewarded for his great sacrifice with the greatest reward ever for his species: Ruler over the creation that had been destined god thd Father of mankind (the first man, Adam)
• But more than that, this sacrificer will get to choose his ‘children’ in his kingdom. He will destroy all humans whom are still in sin and ‘Give Life To’ those whom he deems sinless towards the only God... he will become ‘Father’
• And more so, ‘Eternal Father’ to all those whom he gives life to.., ‘Father’, and ‘Eternsl Father’ meaning ‘Giver of life; the Head’... Eternal Father and Eternal Head... prince to his own father King... and God

Notice please, that Trinitarians cannot furnish a beginning to end scenario of their belief.., their presentation is purely a big here and a bit there but nothing complete!!!!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The so-called ‘incarnation’ is not scriptural. Trinitarians simply misrepresent what God said and make up their own storyline.

God said He would:

• send a saviour, His Servant

whom:

• He chose

and on whom:

• He would put His Spirit

This Servant is to be the fulfilment of what God spoke in the beginning, ipso facto, the very word of God... that the Saviour would be ‘Seed of the Woman’.

We see this fulfilment exactly as God spoke, exactly to his word..,

• God put flesh on the bones of his promise :
• God’s very word came true!
• God’s word in flesh!

This is what trinity gets so wrong. They confuse ‘word of God became flesh’ with the term, ‘incarnation’... they invented the term for their own convenience.

Any right-minded person can see that the trinity is broken if the trinity logic is followed. It implies that the inseparable threesome God separated off one of its inseparable self and became a human Being in the flesh...

But how does an Almighty God split itself (Himself?) when it’s ideology is that it is not composed of parts!!??

Moreover, this split off ‘God’ died and was resurrected by the senior God who sat him down next to him.., but the incarnated one is supposed to be ‘God’ whom he is sitting next to... despite the senior God saying that ‘beside me there is no God’!!

And, after being given power from the senior God, the lesser God was able to do things the senior God could do all along...

And eventually, the lesser god takes pride of place on a human throne to rule over what the lesser god supposed to have created - a minor kingdom in the house of his greater Father God’s greater kingdom.

How about this:

• An only God creates worshippers as human Beings
• These human Beings are physical representations of His spirit self
• They have knowledge in mind of him and thus glorify him in the wonder of his creation
• The creation is greater than humans even imagine and yet to find out
• But the first human, the Father of all following humans, sins.., he was to rule over the creation that he lives in but had now lost his place.
• The creator God is displeased and offers a solution: if another human Being gives his life as a sacrifice and dies for the salvation of all humans, then God will relent
• Such a human would be rewarded for his great sacrifice with the greatest reward ever for his species: Ruler over the creation that had been destined god thd Father of mankind (the first man, Adam)
• But more than that, this sacrificer will get to choose his ‘children’ in his kingdom. He will destroy all humans whom are still in sin and ‘Give Life To’ those whom he deems sinless towards the only God... he will become ‘Father’
• And more so, ‘Eternal Father’ to all those whom he gives life to.., ‘Father’, and ‘Eternsl Father’ meaning ‘Giver of life; the Head’... Eternal Father and Eternal Head... prince to his own father King... and God

Notice please, that Trinitarians cannot furnish a beginning to end scenario of their belief.., their presentation is purely a big here and a bit there but nothing complete!!!!!

Woah! You're telling me the whole gospels is incorrect?
24 Bible verses about Incarnation (Can't list them all)

Incarnation means "a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality."

That first sentence stopped me dead tracks. I will come back to read the rest but the breakups etc although may be emphasis for you, it doesn't help me. If you can type it just simply, I'll break it apart so I can read the context in full. If it's broken up, my points will be broken up and this will go nowhere.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you're arguing with trinitarians through me not what I'm actually saying.

• God put flesh on the bones of his promise :

• God’s very word came true!

• God’s word in flesh!

Well, you're taking it very literal. If you are, what is a spirit?

Most christians I know say god is love.

This is what trinity gets so wrong. They confuse ‘word of God became flesh’ with the term, ‘incarnation’... they invented the term for their own convenience.

No. Just they use words and expressions you disagree with.

Word of god is law of moses
No one listened to the law
Law of moses became the new law-love god and love neighbor
No one listened
God made this new law flesh
How?
Through the passion of christ

Christ is the new law. His death and resurrection is the law made personal and human. I'm not sure if you're understanding this?

Your personal opinion aside, do you get it?

But how does an Almighty God split itself (Himself?) when it’s ideology is that it is not composed of parts!!??

He doesn't. You're mixing Trini- and non-trini views.

Think of it like a marriage. Two separate people but one union. Some say people have been married so long they are like each other: they are one.

And eventually, the lesser god takes pride of place on a human throne to rule over what the lesser god supposed to have created - a minor kingdom in the house of his greater Father God’s greater kingdom.

Lesser god? I never heard of that. The only lesser I can think of a christian comparing that word to is satan.

Notice please, that Trinitarians cannot furnish a beginning to end scenario of their belief.., their presentation is purely a big here and a bit there but nothing complete!!!!!

Ease the negativity. I'm not as passionate about this as you are. It's throwing me off.

I'm not trying to convince you that the trini- is true because you have your own version of it. Everyone has their own version of the nature of creator, savior, and spirit. Even JW say that Jesus is perfect but at the same time still human (like adam before he disobeyed).

It just depends. I don't take sides. It's just how I understand it. I can defend the NTrin. point of view too.

They both have their points. Why does it make a difference???

 

[Soapy]

Woah! You're telling me the whole gospels is incorrect?
24 Bible verses about Incarnation (Can't list them all)

Incarnation means "a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality."

That first sentence stopped me dead tracks. I will come back to read the rest but the breakups etc although may be emphasis for you, it doesn't help me. If you can type it just simply, I'll break it apart so I can read the context in full. If it's broken up, my points will be broken up and this will go nowhere.

It’s so weird that you are astounded that ‘incarnation’ is a made up term by Trinitarians and yet you cannot even list a single verse that claims such an thing (despite claiming there are 24 references!!) Now that is strange (to say it nicely!!)

And what do you mean, ‘break it up’... I set out my points exactly... as points... what is a better way to show you?

Can you not follow this way... if I set a ‘story type’ then I’m accused of block posting.. if I set it out as bullet points I’m accused of something else...

What is going on? Is the truth so obnoxious?

Ok, ask me from beginning to end in a way that is satisfactory to yourself... ask me from any point in gospel time... my presentation is cohesive so I won’t scattergun answers to your question like Trinitarians would do!

 

[Soapy]

I think you're arguing with trinitarians through me not what I'm actually saying.



Well, you're taking it very literal. If you are, what is a spirit?

Most christians I know say god is love.



No. Just they use words and expressions you disagree with.

Word of god is law of moses
No one listened to the law
Law of moses became the new law-love god and love neighbor
No one listened
God made this new law flesh
How?
Through the passion of christ

Christ is the new law. His death and resurrection is the law made personal and human. I'm not sure if you're understanding this?

Your personal opinion aside, do you get it?



He doesn't. You're mixing Trini- and non-trini views.

Think of it like a marriage. Two separate people but one union. Some say people have been married so long they are like each other: they are one.



Lesser god? I never heard of that. The only lesser I can think of a christian comparing that word to is satan.



Ease the negativity. I'm not as passionate about this as you are. It's throwing me off.

I'm not trying to convince you that the trini- is true because you have your own version of it. Everyone has their own version of the nature of creator, savior, and spirit. Even JW say that Jesus is perfect but at the same time still human (like adam before he disobeyed).

It just depends. I don't take sides. It's just how I understand it. I can defend the NTrin. point of view too.

They both have their points. Why does it make a difference???

You don’t take sides.... hmm... I guess you’ve never read the book of Revelation. Jesus tells us there:

• Revelation 3:16
  “So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
  
  Explanation and Commentary on Revelation 3:16
  This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not [for God] and God will reject you.
  

 

[Soapy]

I’m giving you a complete overview of what scriptures says and you are selecting a minutiae aspect.

Before you argue minutiae you need to know the overall point to the aspect at hand.

A friend of mine wanted to know where a certain house place was from where they lived. They found the grid location on their google map and went down to the Street Level View of the house... and then tried navigating the streets trying to find out how to get to where they lived.

I said to her, first select the higher Map Level View so you can get an Overall perspective of and route guide from your house to that house.., then you will know the context of distance and time and directions... it could be the house was around the corner or 20 miles away... But looking at the house specific and then trying to find out how to retro find the route from that house back to yours gives you no perspective at all...

This is what I see you doing. You are looking at a small element of scriptures and arguing around it without knowing the fuller perspective.. it’s no wonder you cannot understand why trinity is so dangerous towards the truth... it’s no wonder you cannot ‘find your way to the truth’.

Your exposition is purely ‘street level’ and you will find it extremely difficult... nye on impossible... to find truth this way.

And as for ‘speaking to Trinitarians’ (speaking against them) Yes, absolutely... Jesus himself always took every opportunity to speak against satanity and the waywardness of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Check the scriptures involving Jesus). We, too, should ‘do as Christ did!’, we should have the same attitude as Christ Jesus: Phil 2.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm really trying to get around your sarcasm....

It’s so weird that you are astounded that ‘incarnation’ is a made up term by Trinitarians and yet you cannot even list a single verse that claims such an thing (despite claiming there are 24 references!!) Now that is strange (to say it nicely!!)

Who said trinitarians made up the word incarnation?

Warning: This is an example only. I know you seen this verse over and over. I'm proving a point not supporting the trinity.

John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

"Word became flesh" When something becomes flesh, it, in itself, is an incarnation of that source (by biblical context). This isn't a religious thing. It's just what the word means.

Again. It sounds like you're arguing with trinitarian through me. I'm not a trinitarian. Who in the world are you fussing with?

And what do you mean, ‘break it up’... I set out my points exactly... as points... what is a better way to show you?

For example:

I'm creating a paragraph to give an example

but why

don't you listen to me. I'm telling you the truth. If you DON'T want to hear me, then so

BE IT. Anyway.

Compared to

I'm creating a paragraph to give an example. But why don't you listen to me. I'm telling you the truth. If you don't want to hear me, then so be it. Anyway.

I'm asking you nicely.

Can you not follow this way... if I set a ‘story type’ then I’m accused of block posting.. if I set it out as bullet points I’m accused of something else...

If you look in my signature, you'll understand why. It's your choice. I'm just giving you a friendly note that I can't follow posts (and many people can't) if it's broken up too much. It's has nothing to do with you.

It would help a lot if you want me to read your full posts rather than jumping around.

What is going on? Is the truth so obnoxious?

It depends on the person. Rhetorical question?

Ok, ask me from beginning to end in a way that is satisfactory to yourself... ask me from any point in gospel time... my presentation is cohesive so I won’t scattergun answers to your question like Trinitarians would do!

If you're trying to convince me, then you have the wrong person. I am not a trinitarian. I just understand it. Do you understand things you disagree with?

I hope not. It seems like that's how you were answering me as if I'm mentioning same arguments as your foes.

Incarnation means something becoming flesh.
Trinity means three things in one group. Tri- meaning three.
Unity-means one unit

These are just English definitions. I'm not sure why they need to actually be in scripture in order for the definitions to be there.

1. Trinity means three in one. Father/creator, Son/savior/ spirit/love, grace, and all of that

John 20:17: Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

Here is jesus showing his relationship with his father.

Romans 8:2-6
...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

All three have a relationship with each other throughout the whole NT.

This is the trinity.

Whose definition are you going by? Trinitarians or the bible?

If you are correct about your definition of the trinity, the word would be incorrect. If god, jesus, and spirit are one person not three, it would be unity. Since tri- implies three not one, it is father, son, "and" holy spirit.

As for your arguments with trinitarians, I'm not sure if you're trying to convince them or just prove they are ignorant. I notice that's a believer thing. Genuine or verbose christianity tends to be a right/wrong religion. I'm just not that type of person.

 

[Soapy]

I'm really trying to get around your sarcasm....

Who said trinitarians made up the word incarnation?

Warning: This is an example only. I know you seen this verse over and over. I'm proving a point not supporting the trinity.

John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

"Word became flesh" When something becomes flesh, it, in itself, is an incarnation of that source (by biblical context). This isn't a religious thing. It's just what the word means.

Again. It sounds like you're arguing with trinitarian through me. I'm not a trinitarian. Who in the world are you fussing with?



For example:

I'm creating a paragraph to give an example

but why

don't you listen to me. I'm telling you the truth. If you DON'T want to hear me, then so

BE IT. Anyway.

Compared to

I'm creating a paragraph to give an example. But why don't you listen to me. I'm telling you the truth. If you don't want to hear me, then so be it. Anyway.

I'm asking you nicely.



If you look in my signature, you'll understand why. It's your choice. I'm just giving you a friendly note that I can't follow posts (and many people can't) if it's broken up too much. It's has nothing to do with you.

It would help a lot if you want me to read your full posts rather than jumping around.



It depends on the person. Rhetorical question?



If you're trying to convince me, then you have the wrong person. I am not a trinitarian. I just understand it. Do you understand things you disagree with?

I hope not. It seems like that's how you were answering me as if I'm mentioning same arguments as your foes.

Incarnation means something becoming flesh.
Trinity means three things in one group. Tri- meaning three.
Unity-means one unit

These are just English definitions. I'm not sure why they need to actually be in scripture in order for the definitions to be there.

1. Trinity means three in one. Father/creator, Son/savior/ spirit/love, grace, and all of that

John 20:17: Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

Here is jesus showing his relationship with his father.

Romans 8:2-6
...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

All three have a relationship with each other throughout the whole NT.

This is the trinity.

Whose definition are you going by? Trinitarians or the bible?

If you are correct about your definition of the trinity, the word would be incorrect. If god, jesus, and spirit are one person not three, it would be unity. Since tri- implies three not one, it is father, son, "and" holy spirit.

As for your arguments with trinitarians, I'm not sure if you're trying to convince them or just prove they are ignorant. I notice that's a believer thing. Genuine or verbose christianity tends to be a right/wrong religion. I'm just not that type of person.

You have no idea what you are you are talking about... what do you mean that you understand the trinity?

Wow, not even trinity ideologists understand the trinity... they tell you that themselves... they say it’s a mystery and that their God is incomprehensible and that (y)our tiny minds cannot cannot fathom his mightiness.

And you say you understand how three rulers are one God - with God being in inseparable person... amazing!!

And yet you don’t believe in trinity?? Double amazing.

And just because trinity means three doesn’t justify a religious movement. Do you know that Bonita means two... what religion does that create?

Ok, let’s cut to the chase... just answer me a few questions:

1. How was Adam created (born)?
2. How was Jesus created (born)?
3. What did God say about the sin of Adam and the point of the ‘seed of the woman’?
4. Did God say he would send a servant who He would put his spirit into and who would fulfil his desire and being justice to the nation (Isaiah 42:1)
5. At the beginning of the New Testament did the word that god spoke in 3) and 4) above come true?
6. Did the fulfilment of 4) occur? When, how?
7. Did the servant of Jesus die as a sacrifice for the sin of Adam?
8. Did God resurrect him and eventually (will) make him sit on the earthly throne of the ancestor, King David?
9. If Jesus is God, why did he die, and why did someone else resurrect him - God resurrected him despite Jesus himself being God?
10. Is it right that Jesus, being God and ruling over the great kingdom of heaven, be demoted to ruling over the minor created and limited kingdom of earth?

Please answer these questions as honestly as you can. You can say, ‘I don’t know’ rather than design a wrongful answer.

Takd your time... Research your answers ... I’m not in a hurry.

Thank you..,

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have no idea what you are you are talking about.

I don't mind reading/talking to you if you cut it with the insults.

 

[Soapy]

I don't mind reading/talking to you if you cut it with the insults.

The truth is not an insult... the insult is in ‘grieving the truth’.

I know that many people deliberately claim they are being insulted as a means ‘not to answer when they realise their ideology will be discovered as being false’.

Saying someone doesn’t understand something that is clearly not being understood can never be an insult!

What I’m seeing is that the view you present cannot hold water. This is a saying that means that what you are saying is so full of holes (wrongful thinking) that its credibility cannot hold together under pressure questioning.

I set out a set of ten questions for you to answer that will test your ideology.

I would be grateful if you would see your way to answering them to prove your ideology.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The truth is not an insult... the insult is in ‘grieving the truth’.

I know that many people deliberately claim they are being insulted as a means ‘not to answer when they realise their ideology will be discovered as being false’.

Saying someone doesn’t understand something that is clearly not being understood can never he an insult!

What I’m seeing is that the view you present cannot hold water. This is a saying that means that what you are saying is so full of holes (wrongful thinking) that its credibility cannot hold together under pressure questioning.

I set out a set of ten questions for you to answer that will test your ideology.

I would be grateful if you would see your way to answering them to prove your ideology.

I didn't read your posts because it starts off with an insult. Regardless how you flip it, that one sentence says what it says. It doesn't matter what we talk about-food, clubbing, whatever-its still there. If you want me to read your posts (so you're not wasting your time), do not insult me.

 

[Soapy]

What a lo

Here go since I have nothing else better to do.

1. God the creator (Genesis 1:1)
2. Word of god (Commandments)
3. God gave the word/the law to his people (The whole of Exodus)
4. People didn't listen (Everywhere in the OT)

6. Since people didn't listen, god made his law/message (law of moses) flesh (John 1:14). It became a new law (love neighbor and creator)

7. So he (this message/law or Word) can "dwell among people" (Verse above) and present this new law on behalf of his father: love god and love brother.

In order for people to participate in this law/word/incarnated-christ (above), they need to ask for salvation (John 3:16). In doing so, those who believe in christ (the word/law/incarnation) will live with his father forever.

One needs to go through the incarnation to get to the father.

Trinity "a state of being three; a group of three things" means that the father/creator, savior/christ (per above), and spirit (love/grace/and all of that) are one. They cannot be separated. They work together for all of the above.

The idea is that if you made jesus human, he no longer can save humanity. Since all denominations do not see him as a sinful human, and god is not of sin, there is an interconnection between the two. Call it duality, unity, trinity, relationship, the idea is still the same.

Don't know why one is right or wrong but no one never challenged me to this perspective just the ones they say over and over or highlighted.

what a load of gobbildy gook!

what church teaches you this complete load of nonsense!

You talk about being insulted ... what you just wrote us a complete insult to the whole of GodMs word.

It’s a true thing what is said that certain people should not preach in the church... I’m not on at you explicitly but I’ve never seen a worse composition in my life .. and I’ve heard a few...

Sorry, your doctrine is even more false than trinity .

I don’t see your answers to my questions... anything but..,

 

[Soapy]

Ok, let’s cut to the chase... just answer me a few questions:

1. How was Adam created (born)?
2. How was Jesus created (born)?
3. What did God say about the sin of Adam and the point of the ‘seed of the woman’?
4. Did God say he would send a servant who He would put his spirit into and who would fulfil his desire and being justice to the nation (Isaiah 42:1)
5. At the beginning of the New Testament did the word that god spoke in 3) and 4) above come true?
6. Did the fulfilment of 4) occur? When, how?
7. Did the servant of Jesus die as a sacrifice for the sin of Adam?
8. Did God resurrect him and eventually (will) make him sit on the earthly throne of the ancestor, King David?
9. If Jesus is God, why did he die, and why did someone else resurrect him - God resurrected him despite Jesus himself being God?
10. Is it right that Jesus, being God and ruling over the great kingdom of heaven, be demoted to ruling over the minor created and limited kingdom of earth?

Please answer these questions as honestly as you can. You can say, ‘I don’t know’ rather than design a wrongful answer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, your doctrine is even more false than trinity .

You don't read anything.

1. I don't believe in the trinity
2. I don't even follow it
3. I just understand both point so view: not trinitarian and non trinitarian

You can point fingers at trinitarians all you want; but, if you want to talk to me about it, do so from a introspective view not an accusative. Negativity turns me off in a heart beat.

You'd have to change your tone for me learn more from what you're saying rather than how you're saying it.

 

[Soapy]

You don't read anything.

1. I don't believe in the trinity
2. I don't even follow it
3. I just understand both point so view: not trinitarian and non trinitarian

You can point fingers at trinitarians all you want; but, if you want to talk to me about it, do so from a introspective view not an accusative. Negativity turns me off in a heart beat.

You'd have to change your tone for me learn more from what you're saying rather than how you're saying it.

Oh dear, touchy little thing.

Do you know that someone who follows Christ will be subject to greater things than a self-perceived insult... Christ suffered physical harm greater than you will ever feel and yet he says we should be like him...pity you didn’t read that!

In any case, I didn’t insult you... I simply told you the truth... as I said, it is the truth that you are insulted by - not me!

Sp if you don’t want to talk about trinity what are you doing posting in a thread about trinity???

You cannot ‘understand’ both sides... if you say you do it’s because you don’t understand any side...

No one understand the trinity... TRINITARIANS do not understand the trinity which is why there are so many denominations of the tri-unity God. Everyone designs their own trinity truth.., and you say you understand all of them.. you are more magical than you know!!!

Trinity is like a whole platform held up by pillars of lies... really.. imagine it... fifty, 100, 1000, more, all holding up a platform of Satanism.

Whenever a trinity pillar is pulled down two more pillars of lies are built up... How? why? When, for instance, Trinitarians were asked how Jesus could be God and yet the Son of God, they came up with several different variations of the lie that supports the idea., yes, the pillar of nonsense that Jesus was son of God and yet God himself all at the same time, was replaced by several support versions all different as to how it could be...

When trinis were asked how Jesus could have emptied himself (Phil 2) and yet remained 100% what he just emptied himself of, they devised at least two differing reasons as to his this could be... each as ridiculous as the other...

When asked how Jesus could be God and yet be sat next to god... yeah, the same...

When the question of how Jesus could be filled with god when he was supposed to be God ... more nonsense!!

When asked why Jesus takes the rulership if creation when he is supposed to be god who created creation.., you got it... silly answers (plural)

When asked what the point of Jesus was if god could do all things... no answer except ridiculous crap!!

When asked why Jesus is Heir to god if he is God...

When asked why the Father ‘adopted’ Jesus as Son... no answer (psst... ‘This day I have become to you a Father, and you have become to me a Son!!’ (This is a Adoption Declaration!)

Do you want more??