How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[sojourner]

We need the "professionals" to tell us what's what in the scriptures?

What do you think the translators are? 6th graders? If it weren't for scholars, you'd have no Bible that you could understand.

 

[rrobs]

Jesus is God because Philippians 2 tells us so: Jesus, though he was in the form of God ... being found in human form, became obedient to death on a cross.

If verse 6 read, "who, being God,.... instead of, "who being in the form of God..." You would have something there. But it says the latter, not the former.

Besides, verse 5 tells us to have the same mind as Jesus. If he thought he was God, then I guess we should also?

In Mark, Jesus is said to have changed his form (Mark 16:12). Does that mean he was no longer Jesus? Of course not. Apparently having a form of something does not change the basic identity of someone. Jesus might have the form of God, but he's still Jesus.

John declared that God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus specifically said, even in his resurrected body, that he had flesh and bones, whereas a spirit has neither (Luk 24:39). So there is a good starting point to research Paul's statement in Philippians. In light of many other verses that plainly declare Jesus to be God's son, Philippians can not be saying Jesus is God. It must mean something else.

Interestingly enough, it is not hard to ascertain that even modern scholars are beginning to doubt the long held belief that Jesus is God. I suppose you will demand references to that, but you'll have to see for yourself if it's true or not. I'm satisfied with the research I've done.

BTW, since I know you will poo poo the research I've done because I'm not a PhD, I refer you to any dictionary. There you will not find a single definition that says a PhD, MS, or even a BS, is required to carry out research.

Take care.

 

[rrobs]

What do you think the translators are? 6th graders? If it weren't for scholars, you'd have no Bible that you could understand.

Are you suggesting that we are not able to build on the work the translators did, that we can not appreciate their work and go from there, just because we didn't do the translation ourselves?

While I'm fairly good with Greek, I know little beyond the alphabet in Hebrew. So what? Does that mean I can't build on the work done by countless scholars in producing dictionaries, concordances, lexicons with which I can ascertain certain nuances not present in the translations? Is it required I do all the research myself or keep quite. Am I not able to speak about Jewish customs because I only read a book produced by an expert who did go to formal school for many years?

Besides, you know darn well there is a huge difference between the largely objective nature of translation vs. the purely subjective contents of commentaries? I've never slammed the translators, just the commentators.

 

[rrobs]

1) You're no bible scholar, religious history scholar, or theologian, so you've got no street cred here.
2) The orthodox Faith is within the Apostolic Faith, so your highlighting means nothing.
3) You're probably not aware that the Gospels were written after Paul's confirmed writings, and both Paul and the Gospels are heavily influenced by Platonism.
4) Satan patently does not appear in Genesis, and to infer that the character is there shows a lack of concern for what the texts actually say. Satan is a pagan character -- not a Hebrew character.
5) Clement was not the first Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, followed by Linus (who was Roman) and then Anacletus (who was Greek).

The teachings of the Church in this particular regard never changed from that of Apostolic teaching, so "going back" to Paul is a moot question. I don't know where you got this cock and bull that we don't have an immortal soul, but you've clearly been misled. Jesus said from the cross that the thief would be with him that day in paradise. Jesus told his disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them, where they would follow. In fact, he told them the story of Lazarus and the rich man, indicating a sentient life after death.

Well, I showed you where everybody had turned against Paul before he even died. I asked when they came back. Was it Clement, Linus, Jerome, or somebody else?

The order in which the books were written do not affect the story line, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Lazarus was a parable, a figure of speech and therefore not meant to be taken literally.

Jesus didn't specify a time in which his disciples would follow him. He never said they'd be with him the day they died. In fact in many other places we can easily determine that the dead go to the grave and that is where they will remain until Jesus gets them up again. That is when we will be with him and not one second before.

Luke 23:43,

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
​

Remove the comma after "thee" and put it after "today." Then you have Jesus saying to the guy, "I'm telling you today, that you will be with me in paradise." He didn't say when he'd be with him, just that at some point he would be with him. By looking at other verses, it is easy to determine when that would actually occur, i.e. when Jesus comes back again.

I know you know that periods, commas, spaces, etc were not in the original. Luke is a case where the translators, presumably in an effort to support preconceived ideas, used a comma to support their idea. The only problem is that it causes serious contradiction, namely, the idea that the dead are really dead, no consciousness, awareness, etc. Assuming we accept the inherent accuracy of God's word, that contradiction can be eliminated by a simple move of a comma. Now the whole of scripture is in agreement that the dead are dead. Geeez, why is it even necessary to say such an obvious thing? I assume you've seen dead people. Have any of them seemed to be living somewhere else? The dead people I've seen sure enough look dead.

Alright, we'll say Satan was not around in Genesis. I don't really believe that, but for argument sake, I'll concede the point. Who told Eve she could be like God, that she'd not die? If you like it to be someone else, fine, just change my "Satan" in the post to whoever you want. For sure it wasn't God and for sure they directly contradicted what God said about death. I don't care if it was Howdy Doodie, or Alfred E. Newman, or Stephen Hawkins. The logic is the same.

You may want to correct the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia. They have this weird idea that Clement was the first Pope. Thinking they were wrong and you are right, I checked Wilipedia and found the same thing. Maybe there is a more scholarly source that will set me straight. Any help with that would be appreciated.

Take care

 

[rrobs]

What do you think the translators are? 6th graders? If it weren't for scholars, you'd have no Bible that you could understand.

I appreciate the fact that the scholars have changed, "εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος" into "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

That's one thing, but then to go on and say the logos is Jesus is another thing altogether. That's opinion and nothing more than opinion. Wasn't it Joe Friday who used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

 

[sojourner]

If verse 6 read, "who, being God,.... instead of, "who being in the form of God..." You would have something there. But it says the latter, not the former.

You obviously don't understand the ancient Greek thought process. This is why the doctrine says that the three persons are of one being, or essence. "Father," "Son," "HS" are different forms of the one essence underneath. Philippians thus declares that Jesus, though he was in the form of God, found himself in human form. This is one reason why the doctrine declares that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

Besides, verse 5 tells us to have the same mind as Jesus. If he thought he was God, then I guess we should also?

Yup. Why do you think God gave the Law?

In Mark, Jesus is said to have changed his form (Mark 16:12). Does that mean he was no longer Jesus? Of course not. Apparently having a form of something does not change the basic identity of someone. Jesus might have the form of God, but he's still Jesus.

Mark 16:12 is part of a later addition to original Mark. Let me ask you this: can a human being change form? Between one who is human and one who is divine, which do you think is better able to change form?

John declared that God is spirit (John 4:24). Jesus specifically said, even in his resurrected body, that he had flesh and bones, whereas a spirit has neither

John also declared that God is Word. Other places in the Bible call God a "hen," a "rock," a "stronghold," a "light." So what? Why do you think that the doctrine declares the Holy Spirit to be God?

In light of many other verses that plainly declare Jesus to be God's son, Philippians can not be saying Jesus is God. It must mean something else.

No. It doesn't mean something else. This is also partly why the doctrine declares that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine.

Interestingly enough, it is not hard to ascertain that even modern scholars are beginning to doubt the long held belief that Jesus is God. I suppose you will demand references to that, but you'll have to see for yourself if it's true or not. I'm satisfied with the research I've done.

I'm sure you are. Ignorance is bliss.

BTW, since I know you will poo poo the research I've done because I'm not a PhD, I refer you to any dictionary. There you will not find a single definition that says a PhD, MS, or even a BS, is required to carry out research.

No, but the criterion for acceptable and legitimate research is that it be peer-reviewed. Guess whose research gets peer-reviewed?

Here's the mistake you and others are making. First of all, you're not actually reading what the doctrine actually says; you're making statements about it from misunderstanding or from hearsay. I simply can't understand why -- if the subject is so very important to you that you crusade on the internet against it -- you refuse to take a look at the actual doctrine? Why is that? Second, it's like you think that A) the Bible is the ONLY legitimate source for any doctrine or theological construct. It is not -- and never has been, except for those who buy into the heresy of sola scriptura, and B) that the doctrine is like a scientific entry in a textbook, with very strictly-defined particulars. But that's not what the doctrine is -- or any other theology. ANY theology, taken far enough, will eventually break down. That's because we simply can't know enough about God to formulate an entirely objective definition. The doctrine of the Trinity (like every other theological construct, including "savior," "Redeemer," "Son of God," etc.) is a compromise. Instead of an ontological absolute, such theological constructs are highly metaphoric. Additionally, since the bible reflects the Faith, in that it is highly multivalent and finds expression in a myriad ways, the doctrine is very broad in its metaphors, so as to include as many facets of Xy as possible.

Suffice to say that, in order to understand the doctrine, you not only have to read it, but you also have to have the capacity to understand the theological milieu from which it is formulated. Your posts don't exhibit that capacity. Your thinking is apparently rather two-dimensional in that regard.

 

[sojourner]

Are you suggesting that we are not able to build on the work the translators did, that we can not appreciate their work and go from there, just because we didn't do the translation ourselves?

Yes, but you appear to dismiss scholarship in general.

Am I not able to speak about Jewish customs because I only read a book produced by an expert who did go to formal school for many years?

Sure, but just because you read one book doesn't make you an expert, or learned, or well-versed, or an authority on the subject. So when you make these statements in judgment of those of us who follow orthodox doctrine, since you're not an authority on the subject, it doesn't mean anything. It's OK to say, "I don't understand the doctrine -- even though I've read it; it makes no sense to me, so I don't believe it," that's an honest and legitimate statement. But to say, "The doctrine is wrong and goes against the Bible and, thus, what Jesus taught," is highly disingenuous.

Besides, you know darn well there is a huge difference between the largely objective nature of translation vs. the purely subjective contents of commentaries?

Translation is also very subjective, in that translators have to "fudge" all the time, and make value judgments of their work, in order to retain the meaning of the original in the translation. It's not just a pedantic, word-for-word transliteration. AND, commentaries derive from legitimate exegesis, whose aim is to take the subjective out of the reading. Your dismissal of the exegetical exercise is unfounded and based in ignorance of the process involved.

 

[rrobs]

You obviously don't understand the ancient Greek thought process. This is why the doctrine says that the three persons are of one being, or essence. "Father," "Son," "HS" are different forms of the one essence underneath. Philippians thus declares that Jesus, though he was in the form of God, found himself in human form. This is one reason why the doctrine declares that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

Yup. Why do you think God gave the Law?

Mark 16:12 is part of a later addition to original Mark. Let me ask you this: can a human being change form? Between one who is human and one who is divine, which do you think is better able to change form?

John also declared that God is Word. Other places in the Bible call God a "hen," a "rock," a "stronghold," a "light." So what? Why do you think that the doctrine declares the Holy Spirit to be God?

No. It doesn't mean something else. This is also partly why the doctrine declares that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine.

I'm sure you are. Ignorance is bliss.

No, but the criterion for acceptable and legitimate research is that it be peer-reviewed. Guess whose research gets peer-reviewed?

Here's the mistake you and others are making. First of all, you're not actually reading what the doctrine actually says; you're making statements about it from misunderstanding or from hearsay. I simply can't understand why -- if the subject is so very important to you that you crusade on the internet against it -- you refuse to take a look at the actual doctrine? Why is that? Second, it's like you think that A) the Bible is the ONLY legitimate source for any doctrine or theological construct. It is not -- and never has been, except for those who buy into the heresy of sola scriptura, and B) that the doctrine is like a scientific entry in a textbook, with very strictly-defined particulars. But that's not what the doctrine is -- or any other theology. ANY theology, taken far enough, will eventually break down. That's because we simply can't know enough about God to formulate an entirely objective definition. The doctrine of the Trinity (like every other theological construct, including "savior," "Redeemer," "Son of God," etc.) is a compromise. Instead of an ontological absolute, such theological constructs are highly metaphoric. Additionally, since the bible reflects the Faith, in that it is highly multivalent and finds expression in a myriad ways, the doctrine is very broad in its metaphors, so as to include as many facets of Xy as possible.

Suffice to say that, in order to understand the doctrine, you not only have to read it, but you also have to have the capacity to understand the theological milieu from which it is formulated. Your posts don't exhibit that capacity. Your thinking is apparently rather two-dimensional in that regard.

Thanks for the reply, but I was really hoping to get your view on when all Asia returned to Paul's doctrine. I'd still be interested in learning that, but I would require references to support your claim before I even think about changing my current view. So far, I've not been able to ascertain when the church abandoned Clement's view on death and went back to Paul's view.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, but you appear to dismiss scholarship in general.

I suppose I was painting scholarship with too broad of a brush. Anyway, now I think you have a better understanding of my view.

 

[rrobs]

Translation is also very subjective, in that translators have to "fudge" all the time, and make value judgments of their work, in order to retain the meaning of the original in the translation. It's not just a pedantic, word-for-word transliteration. AND, commentaries derive from legitimate exegesis, whose aim is to take the subjective out of the reading. Your dismissal of the exegetical exercise is unfounded and based in ignorance of the process involved.

All true. I was speaking on a more generalized level. Nonetheless translation is certainly more objective than commentary.

Why do you have to keep bringing up intelligence levels? It just makes you look unsure of your own grasp of the subject. Not to criticize, just pointing it out. Besides, remember I told you I got straight "A"s in HS. Give me a medal for that please.

 

[rrobs]

You obviously don't understand the ancient Greek thought process. This is why the doctrine says that the three persons are of one being, or essence. "Father," "Son," "HS" are different forms of the one essence underneath. Philippians thus declares that Jesus, though he was in the form of God, found himself in human form. This is one reason why the doctrine declares that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

We are divine also.

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
​

Maybe figure out what it means to be divine. Apparently it means something other than being Yahweh.

Let's read a little more of Philippians.

Phil 2:6-7,

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Hmmmm. According to verse 6 Jesus being in form of God makes him to actually be God. But then we get a rather big surprise in verse 7; God is a servant!

Better rethink what it means to be the "form" of something.

 

[sojourner]

Well, I showed you where everybody had turned against Paul before he even died.

Who is "everybody?" In what scope? Everyone "in the room?" Everyone "in that congregation?" Everyone "named Bob?" Everyone "who is Jewish, perhaps?"

The order in which the books were written do not affect the story line, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

No, they don't affect the story line, but it matters in terms of source material. What are you using as a baseline for biblically-stated Christian belief? Paul's beliefs sometimes differ from that of the Gospelers. Which is "correct?" That's where it matters.

Lazarus was a parable, a figure of speech and therefore not meant to be taken literally.

First of all, a parable isn't a "figure of speech." Second, are you suggesting that when Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a sower who sowed wheat, we should just dismiss that line of thinking because it's a parable?

Jesus didn't specify a time in which his disciples would follow him. He never said they'd be with him the day they died. In fact in many other places we can easily determine that the dead go to the grave and that is where they will remain until Jesus gets them up again. That is when we will be with him and not one second before.

Doesn't matter when. You said "dead is dead -- there is no conscious spirit that lives on." Now you're telling me that there is such -- just at some later time. Which is it? This is why you shouldn't "play Theologian."

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Remove the comma after "thee" and put it after "today." Then you have Jesus saying to the guy, "I'm telling you today, that you will be with me in paradise." He didn't say when he'd be with him, just that at some point he would be with him. By looking at other verses, it is easy to determine when that would actually occur, i.e. when Jesus comes back again.

See above.

I know you know that periods, commas, spaces, etc were not in the original. Luke is a case where the translators, presumably in an effort to support preconceived ideas, used a comma to support their idea.

"Presumably in an effort to retain the original meaning," don't you mean? If you think it's the case that translators always have some agenda, why have you remained content to take them at their word, "building upon their work," as you said? But wait! In this case you've decided to dismiss their judgment, precisely because it does not fit with your preconceived idea.

The only problem is that it causes serious contradiction, namely, the idea that the dead are really dead, no consciousness, awareness, etc.

That's not what you said above. Will Jesus, then, raise zombies?

I assume you've seen dead people. Have any of them seemed to be living somewhere else? The dead people I've seen sure enough look dead.

The bodies are dead. The spirits are not.

Alright, we'll say Satan was not around in Genesis. I don't really believe that, but for argument sake, I'll concede the point. Who told Eve she could be like God, that she'd not die? If you like it to be someone else, fine, just change my "Satan" in the post to whoever you want. For sure it wasn't God and for sure they directly contradicted what God said about death. I don't care if it was Howdy Doodie, or Alfred E. Newman, or Stephen Hawkins. The logic is the same.

First of all, it's Stephen Hawking. Second, the serpent in the garden represents wisdom -- not "Satan." And yes, it does contradict what God says about death. The story is plagiarized from earlier, Sumerian myth. In that mythos, "God" was not always right or truthful. We have to do quite a bit of theological finagling to get the story to "fit the mold" of conventional, Judeo/Christian theology.

You may want to correct the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia. They have this weird idea that Clement was the first Pope. Thinking they were wrong and you are right, I checked Wilipedia and found the same thing. Maybe there is a more scholarly source that will set me straight. Any help with that would be appreciated.

Here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes
And: List of popes - Wikipedia
And: Catholic Bible 101
Just some web resources that corroborate the Christian history textbooks I have in my study.

 

[sojourner]

I appreciate the fact that the scholars have changed, "εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος" into "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

That's one thing, but then to go on and say the logos is Jesus is another thing altogether. That's opinion and nothing more than opinion. Wasn't it Joe Friday who used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

It's more than that, though. It's considered opinion. Which is what professional translators do. You're being unnecessarily skeptical -- that is, you don't have any legitimate, dissenting evidence that should make you skeptical.

 

[sojourner]

All true. I was speaking on a more generalized level. Nonetheless translation is certainly more objective than commentary.

Not necessarily, and not always.

Why do you have to keep bringing up intelligence levels? It just makes you look unsure of your own grasp of the subject. Not to criticize, just pointing it out. Besides, remember I told you I got straight "A"s in HS. Give me a medal for that please.

I'm not bringing up intelligence levels; I'm bringing up educational levels. I do this because it takes a certain amount of education in order to gain the knowledge, tools, and in order to get a grasp of the processes involved in analytics in order to deal with these ancient and disparate texts in an informed way.

I'm glad that you got straight As in high school; it shows you had promise as a student. But that doesn't imbue you with the tools you need to make informed decisions about these texts in any authoritative way.

 

[sojourner]

We are divine also.

Yup.

Hmmmm. According to verse 6 Jesus being in form of God makes him to actually be God. But then we get a rather big surprise in verse 7; God is a servant!

Correct!

Better rethink what it means to be the "form" of something.

Absolutely! Here's why:

Again, you seem to think that these are ontological facts, but they're not; they're theological statements. Remember where the prophecies tell us that God will bring the mountains low and lift up the valleys? Remember where Mary sang that God would "lift up the lowly and scatter the proud in their conceit?" Remember where Jesus claimed that the meek inherit the earth? Remember where Jesus says that "the last shall be first?" Yes! God is a servant. Why? Because God is love, and love always serves the interests of the object of love.

This is why it is of theological importance that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Because Jesus provides the "bridge" between us and God. It's in that way that Jesus redeems us. Jesus is the avatar -- the metaphor -- for what it means for us to be divine in our own essence. In the beginning, we became nephesh precisely because God blew ruach (means both "breath" and "spirit") into us. We each contain the spirit of God. Therefore, we are God's, because God made us and God gave us God's life (Just as God-in-human-form, Jesus, gave us his life). It's all metaphor in order to explain theological truths. In the garden (another metaphor), we turned our backs on God -- tried to hide from God. This separated us from God. Since we are unable to return to God through that covering of sin, God comes to get us. God does that by becoming one of us. Jesus is both God and human and thus shows us that we, too are really divine in nature underneath the mask of sin. See?

This is all theology -- not ontology. There are any number of legitimate theological constructs that help us on our path to spiritual enlightenment. The Trinity is one such construct, and I believe it's central to the Faith.

 

[rrobs]

Who is "everybody?" In what scope? Everyone "in the room?" Everyone "in that congregation?" Everyone "named Bob?" Everyone "who is Jewish, perhaps?"

You could read the verse to which I referred for yourself and see who "everybody" is, but you are more interested in twisting other people's words than having a meaningful conversation.

 

[rrobs]

It's more than that, though. It's considered opinion. Which is what professional translators do. You're being unnecessarily skeptical -- that is, you don't have any legitimate, dissenting evidence that should make you skeptical.

Where's your evidence that it is considered opinion?

 

[rrobs]

Not necessarily, and not always.

I'm not bringing up intelligence levels; I'm bringing up educational levels. I do this because it takes a certain amount of education in order to gain the knowledge, tools, and in order to get a grasp of the processes involved in analytics in order to deal with these ancient and disparate texts in an informed way.

I'm glad that you got straight As in high school; it shows you had promise as a student. But that doesn't imbue you with the tools you need to make informed decisions about these texts in any authoritative way.

In general, until now, I've been making a huge mistake in even talking with you.

2Tim 2:16,

But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
​

 

[Soapy]

In general, until now, I've been making a huge mistake in even talking with you.

2Tim 2:16,

But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.​

Did I not warn youse lot about this very thing?

By the way, try looking for and agreeing definitions for the critical words used in discussions and absolutely in debates!!

For instance, I asked sojourner for his definition of ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘God’... but he refused in his normal manner because doing so, I conjecture, would lock him into admitting many things he says are not true BY THE DOCTRINE of trinity...!!

Ask him to define ‘Essence’...

How is Father, Essence? And Son, Essence, and Holy Spirit, ESSENCE?

Since God is Spirit, what therefore is ESSENCE? But Spirit IS ESSENCE, anyway!!!

But if Jesus is God then Jesus is SPIRIT and therefore ESSENCE... not SHARING ESSENCE!!

And the Holy Spirit is SPIRIT and ESSENCE!!

All the above are sojourner Doctrine of trinity, which he finally revealed. Remember that he kept saying that, even obvious verses, were many and varied so we need to be absolutely precise as to which one we were posting to him? Well, likewise there are MANY DOCTRINES but he was refusing to say which one he was claiming to be expressing his views through.

So WHO is God... what is the definition of ‘God’?

In fact, ‘God’ is JUST A TITLE - it’s not anything different to ‘MONARCH’, ‘RULER’, or ‘MAJESTY’.

It is, actually, a German word... a German word used Theologically... what is it’s etymology?

Being JUST A TITLE it can be applied to ANYONE Wo is in a position of being Worshipful, Majestic, Mighty, Ruling, Judicial, the highest, the best, etc! Hence virtually ALL RELIGIONS and beliefs have a God, and more often, MANY GODS!

The Israelites were told to worship ONLY ONE GOD... They were among tribes and nations that worshipped many DEITIES: many Gods... Each of those deities was one of their Gods... Gods to them. But the Israelites were directed to seek out only one deity to worship : one God: THEIR ONLY GOD... whose name was given as YHWH (‘I AM’).

In Phil 2 we are shown that Jesus was in the form of God... Being in the form of something absolutely means the thing IS NOT ACTUALLY the thing it is in the form of... how can it be - else it would not be said to be in that form:

Does scriptures ever say that The Father was in the form of God?

Does scriptures ever say that the Holy Spirit was in the form of God?

In fact, the Holy Spirit is ‘The Spirit of the Father’, ‘the ESSENCE’ of the Father... the Spirit of God!

By the way, in all references above and hereinunto and hereafter, the term, ‘God’ should properly be written as ‘THE GOD’ (appropriately). The scripture translators dropped the definitive (‘The’) and this purposely or unfortunately turned the title into a NAME... hence Trinitarians say, ‘Jesus is GOD’ as if ‘God’ was PERSONAL to their only Deity... you know... they say there were no other ‘Gods’... yet scriptures says that THE [ISRAELITE] God called men of renown who received his holy word, ‘Gods’... (see my definition of ‘Gods, above)

And ‘Son’... this means: ‘He who follows and fully carries out the works of the Father’: ‘He who follows the Spirit of the Father’. Jesus told the Jews that he only called himself ‘Son of God’ because he was doing the works of his Father... the Jews had accused him of calling himself ‘God’ because he said He was God’s son... they saying that in their belief a son was equal to his Father ... complete nonsense claim!!! Jesus told them that his Father was greater than he... so even if he claimed Sonship with God he was still saying God was greater than he!!!

Thus, Phil 2 could never be claiming that Jesus WAS GOD... in fact what it meant was that JESUS HAD THE POWER OF GOD...

You know that to be true because Jesus was ANOINTED with the POWER OF GOD at the river Jordan: ‘The Father was pleased that he [Jesus] should be FILLED with the FULLNESS OF DEITY’. You also know this from Isaiah 42;1 where Yhwh foretold that he would do this: ‘Behold my servant whom I uphold... I will put my spirit on him...!’

And ‘Father’... HE WHO BRINGS INTO BEING... he who creates... he who brings to life... the Head...

In what way is THE SON a creator...? Is it not The Father who creates... otherwise why isn’t Jesus called ‘FATHER’?

And, by trinity, since Jesus and the Father are said to be EQUAL then clearly there is a full-on judaistic influence in the trinity compounded by paganistic multiple God worship ... multiple DEITIES (Father, son, Holy Spirit) AS IMPOSSIBLY ONE ESSENCE and BEING!

 

[YoursTrue]

You're projecting.


Again: this is a straw man. The doctrine clearly states that the Son is not the Father. You present this as the Trinity, but it isn't. You have created a false argument, set it up as the truth, and then proceed to knock it down. That's a "straw man argument."


The logic in this post is insane at its worst and nonexistent at best. Yes, Jesus and the Father are one -- one in essence, not in person. The doctrine makes that quite clear, if you'd bother to really read it. It's obvious that you have not, which is why I keep harping on that subject. You don't get to just make up stuff, claim that it's the "doctrine" and then call it "unintelligible." That's not how debate works.

In the passage you cite, Jesus is talking about the Father -- not the HS. It's as if you think that every time Jesus talks about who he is, all three have to be mentioned. But that's not the case. There are plenty of other places in the texts that talk about the HS. Taking one verse and building a theological construct out of it as if it includes the whole Tradition is disingenuous and irresponsible.


Just so. The three are co-equal.


Because this is how communities work.


See below. What you are posting about the doctrine is not what the doctrine says. Your posts are disingenuous and misleading.


If you would stop presenting straw man arguments, I would stop calling you out on it.
If you would read the doctrine, your posts wouldn't be outrageous.
If your theological constructions were well thought out, they wouldn't be terrible.

This is your fault -- not mine.


I'll need a specific reference before I can address it.

Fact is, you don't want to debate, you want to preach. Like every other really bad preacher, instead of presenting truth, all your posts are doing is slinging accusations. They come off as ill-informed and angry. It's really sad that, as far as argument and proof goes, this is all you've got.

I'm thinking that your arguments (defense, perhaps?) hold little water. Also, the trinity does not make biblical sense, so -- argue away...