How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[YoursTrue]

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!

I'm sorry that I can't keep up with all the posts, and I usually don't read long posts, but I must say that I, too, wonder what "essence" means... as if all three persons are of the same "essence"?? Imagine three persons of the same "essence" (?) always there without beginning? It just isn't so...

 

[YoursTrue]

Notice that there is a thing called the Doctrine of the Trinity. That's the doctrine I'm speaking of. It's written out specifically, and contains specific theological ideas. If you don't know what you're arguing against (the doctrine), how can you argue effectively?


In fact, I acknowledged that there are several verses such as the one you mentioned, so this is an outright lie.


That's not what I claimed. I claimed that you were making untrue statements about the doctrine, claiming them to be true, and then knocking down those untruths.


And so it is.


Please! More faux superiority.


Someone here is a deceiver, but it ain't me. This post alone is full of deceit and lies.

Again, it doesn't matter what the doctrine says. It's not true. Anyway, anyhow.

 

[YoursTrue]

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!

Good point about no scripture saying the Father was (is) in the "form of God."

 

[YoursTrue]

Says who? Why can he not be both fully human and also God? Surely this is a large part of the beauty of the Christian message. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero........ Et incarnatus est, de Spiritu Sancto ex Marina Virgine, et homo factus est.

Not everyone who says he's a Christian believer in the trinity believes Mary is the eternal virgin.

 

[exchemist]

Not everyone who says he's a Christian believer in the trinity believes Mary is the eternal virgin.

Eh? Why bring that into the discussion? I'm just quoting the Nicene Creed here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Eh? Why bring that into the discussion? I'm just quoting the Nicene Creed here.

Unless I'm wrong, doesn't part of the Nicene creed say this (translated into English):
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

Not all who say they believe in the trinity believe that Mary was a virgin when she was impregnated with Jesus.

 

[exchemist]

Unless I'm wrong, doesn't part of the Nicene creed say this (translated into English):
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

Not all who say they believe in the trinity believe that Mary was a virgin when she was impregnated with Jesus.

Most Christians believe this, as it is what is in St Luke's Gospel: "How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man?"

The idea of eternal virginity is something different.

 

[sojourner]

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.

I'm sorry; I must have missed a post. I'm carrying on debates with various people in various threads. Could you post the reference again, and I'll take a look. Thanks.

 

[sojourner]

Where's your evidence that it is considered opinion?

Because these are professionals who spend their scholastic lives in the exegetical process, whose purpose is precisely to render considered opinion, based upon what we can know about the texts, while working to "unfilter" their reading. The whole exegetical process is one of considering facts. Otherwise, they wouldn't be peer-reviewed.

 

[sojourner]

I'm thinking that your arguments (defense, perhaps?) hold little water.

Of course you do.

Also, the trinity does not make biblical sense, so

Of course you don't think it does.

 

[sojourner]

Again, it doesn't matter what the doctrine says.

Of course it does, because the doctrine is the baseline for the belief.

It's not true. Anyway, anyhow.

You're not in a position to make that call with any authority.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it does, because the doctrine is the baseline for the belief.


You're not in a position to make that call with any authority.

I don't believe it. It does not make sense to me. So then what? And, the doctrine, rather than the Bible is the "baseline for the belief"?

 

[sojourner]

I don't believe it. It does not make sense to me. So then what?

so you don't believe it. But your lack of understanding doesn't make everyone else wrong, and it doesn't make the doctrine universally false.

And, the doctrine, rather than the Bible is the "baseline for the belief"?

That's what a doctrine is: a codified belief. Trinitarians believe what the doctrine of the Trinity says -- not what someone else says about the Trinity. One doesn't "believe in" the Bible -- there's no set doctrine to believe in, and the texts are multivalent.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Here you're concerned about "Paul's doctrine." And you're concerned that the church departed from that doctrine, and possibly didn't return to it. Hence, you doubt the Church. But yet you seem to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity, which is also someone's doctrine (like Paul's doctrine), because it doesn't "come from the Bible." But here's your mistake: Paul's doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. Paul wrote before the Gospels, and his writings weren't considered to be "Biblical" until later Christians decided they were Biblical. This is what I've been trying to get across to everyone. You all place so much priority on what's "Biblical," yet you believe in things whose origin is not the Bible. Look, the Church is highly communal -- that is, it's comprised of people who follow the Apostles' teaching. Paul doesn't give us Christ's teaching; he gives us his teaching about Christ. And other Apostles came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. Why are Paul's particular teachings any more authoritative than the other Apostles' teachings?

Paul taught us to "continue in the Apostle's teaching, in the prayers, and in the breaking of bread." He didn't teach us to "continue in the Biblical teachings." That's because Paul knew that the authority derives from the Apostles -- not the Hebrew texts. So, you all need to get straight in your minds that the Bible is simply part of the Apostles' teaching, and that the Apostles' teaching can be legitimately used as a basis for the formulation of doctrine. In fact, there is a threefold base of authority: scripture, Tradition, reason. All three are used in the formulation of doctrinal beliefs.

 

[rrobs]

One doesn't "believe in" the Bible -- there's no set doctrine to believe in, and the texts are multivalent.[/QUOTE
How does that work with Psalms 12:6?

The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
​

Wouldn't that indicate a high degree of precision?

 

[rrobs]

Here you're concerned about "Paul's doctrine." And you're concerned that the church departed from that doctrine, and possibly didn't return to it. Hence, you doubt the Church. But yet you seem to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity, which is also someone's doctrine (like Paul's doctrine), because it doesn't "come from the Bible." But here's your mistake: Paul's doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. Paul wrote before the Gospels, and his writings weren't considered to be "Biblical" until later Christians decided they were Biblical. This is what I've been trying to get across to everyone. You all place so much priority on what's "Biblical," yet you believe in things whose origin is not the Bible. Look, the Church is highly communal -- that is, it's comprised of people who follow the Apostles' teaching. Paul doesn't give us Christ's teaching; he gives us his teaching about Christ. And other Apostles came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. Why are Paul's particular teachings any more authoritative than the other Apostles' teachings?

Paul taught us to "continue in the Apostle's teaching, in the prayers, and in the breaking of bread." He didn't teach us to "continue in the Biblical teachings." That's because Paul knew that the authority derives from the Apostles -- not the Hebrew texts. So, you all need to get straight in your minds that the Bible is simply part of the Apostles' teaching, and that the Apostles' teaching can be legitimately used as a basis for the formulation of doctrine. In fact, there is a threefold base of authority: scripture, Tradition, reason. All three are used in the formulation of doctrinal beliefs.

I might be wrong, but it seems sometimes you agree with Paul and other times you don't. For example, you agree with him regarding following the apostle's doctrine, but you seem to disagree with him about the Father being the only God, thus disqualifying the son as being a second God.

I guess the fact that you identify as Christian/Shamanic shows your bent towards mixing scripture with philosophy, just like the guys who came up the with trinity formula at Nicaea and Constantinople.

Take care

 

[sojourner]

"6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure,
silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times." I don't read anything about the Bible here. I read about promises. And promises can, likewise be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on the context.

 

[sojourner]

I might be wrong, but it seems sometimes you agree with Paul and other times you don't. For example, you agree with him regarding following the apostle's doctrine, but you seem to disagree with him about the Father being the only God, thus disqualifying the son as being a second God.

I don't acknowledge 2 gods. That's patently not what the doctrine says. if you'd read it, you'd know that. The Father and the Son are one God -- just as Paul asserts.

I guess the fact that you identify as Christian/Shamanic shows your bent towards mixing scripture with philosophy, just like the guys who came up the with trinity formula at Nicaea and Constantinople.

Scripture is philosophy, in part. I don't see a problem with that. What I do see a problem with is treating the Bible like a Chilton's Manual.

 

[rrobs]

"6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure,
silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times." I don't read anything about the Bible here. I read about promises. And promises can, likewise be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on the context.

"Promises?" The Hebrew word is "emrah." It is used 37 times.

Commandment, 1 time.
Speech, 7 times
word(s), 29 times
​

But for argument sake, let's say it should be "promises" in this verse. What would it mean in this context? What are some of the other number of ways "promise" can be interpreted?

 

[rrobs]

I don't acknowledge 2 gods. That's patently not what the doctrine says. if you'd read it, you'd know that.

I know. The Athanasian Creed says,

"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."
​

As if by a stroke of nonsensical writing, we can first name three different God, then say they are not 3 Gods, but one God.

You sound like a rather intelligent individual. Why would you buy into this Orwellian disconnect?

I also know about essence, personality, homoosion, and other other extra Biblical terms of which God apparently was not in the know. He had to wait for 300 some years after Paul's apparent failure to reveal the true nature of God and Jesus. You have no problem with that?