How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[YoursTrue]

Oh, so now you see how your ‘doctrine’ is ‘horse crap’.

1) It is you who claimed that ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable.

2) It is you that declared your doctrine includes ‘The Lord is the Spirit’

3) It is you that claim that ‘God is Essence’ and that the three persons share in the essence

4) Scriptures declares that ‘God MADE ... Jesus TO BE Lord and Christ’

....

Good point that God made Jesus to be Lord and Christ. That really should settle at least part of the argument, in that Jesus was GIVEN these great privileges. He, unlike the Devil, did not try to usurp the throne from his Father and God. I don't know anyone called a son that did not come from a predecessor. First the father lives. Then a child (in this case, son) comes later.

 

[Soapy]

I didn’t claim all those things, and you’ve managed to twist what I did claim. You’re gaslighting.

You claim you didn’t claim all of those things... so which ones DID you claim...

Moreover, since you swear by the doctrine, then anything the doctrine states is also YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Soapy]

Good point that God made Jesus to be Lord and Christ. That really should settle at least part of the argument, in that Jesus was GIVEN these great privileges. He, unlike the Devil, did not try to usurp the throne from his Father and God. I don't know anyone called a son that did not come from a predecessor. First the father lives. Then a child (in this case, son) comes later.

Thanks for the support. The verse is well known but, while not denied by trinitarians, is not expressed on in case Trinitarians are asked to explain it and found wanting!!

‘Son’, I keep stating, in spiritual terms, NOT FLESH, means:

• ‘He who does the works of the Father’

Jesus stated to the Jews that he was “God’s Son” and this led to them accusing him of claiming to be God (himself...!! Odd!!!)

The Jewish thinking (though I’ve searched for it fervently and can find nothing - suggesting it’s a trinity fallacy) was that the Son is EQUAL TO THE FATHER...

I’m sure you can see this is nonsense!! Anyhow, the Jews therefore (according to the trinity BIBLE TEXT) claimed that Jesus was ‘Calling himself God’... because if he came from God then he (Jesus) MUST ALSO BE GOD... AND EQUAL TO GOD (is that odd!!!?? Is God ...and EQUAL to God??!!)

Now, try this ... JESUS DENIED that being God’s Son meant that he was calling himself God... but Trinitarians can’t read that. Jesus told them emphatically that he only called himself “The Son of God”... AND that he proved it by”doing his works”... ‘if you don’t believe me [that I’m doing his works] then believe in the works themselves.”

Thus, Jesus DEFINED “Son of God” as “The one doing the works of the Father”... which is qualified by other scriptures such as:

• “All who follow the Spirit [of God] are Children [Sons] of God”

And you know for certain that the holy angels are stated as being “[Sprit] Sons of God” because they absolutely and completely do the works of God (their Spiritual Father)...

Would any trinity person exclaim the definition of “Son” to you in this truthful manner? NO... why? Because to do so would destroy the doctrine of trinity to say that the Son is GOD.

Remember that ‘Spirit does not Procreate’... it only CREATES. And the SON of creation is NOT GOD because [a TRUE] God cannot be CREATED... let alone PROCREATED (which is a direct FLESHLY offspring as in Human to Human)Hence explaining why Jesus and Adam were both born SINLESS and HOLY... SONS OF GOD (obviously Adam later sinned!!)

 

[eik]

Trinitarianism is not found in the scriptures: absolutely true.

My expression of protestation against your post is that, knowingly or otherwise, you do express none truthful ideas which appear trinitarianistic.

I would disagree as I have often said that the Father is the only "true God." Never have I once called Jesus "God." How then can I appear trinitarianistic? It is a premise of all trinitarians that "Jesus is God."

I am one who is Anti-Trinity to my core, so I will oppose any and all content that professes (or appears to profess) trinity ideology.I have no idea what that means!

The only trinity is a philosophical trinity. I don't think I've ever preached it. To say that Jesus and the Father were distinguishable is not to preach the philosophical trinity.

How many Christ’s are there? I know of (believe in) only one: the Anointed (‘Christ’ means ‘Anointed one’) whom scriptures tells us was named ‘Jesus’. Actually, it was ‘Joshua’ or a derivative but who’s taking notice that ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ both mean, ‘He who saves his people!’ and that there was no one in Joseph’s family named “Jesus”, when he was named. Tradition meant that a Male child should be named after a family member in lineage - see the problem with Zaccharias being forced against tradition to call his son, ‘John’... I’m sure you all know the story Glad to hear if. But it was just a point of order in context of the issue.This typifies responses from those who just lost a debate point: attack the truth speaker and claim being offended... The quote I referred to came from Jesus... and he, too, was speaking the truth against those who spoke ignorantly (in ignorance). If you feel threatened by the truth then perhaps you’re not equipped to be debating on aspects of life-defining matters as expressed in the verse:

• ‘This means life, that they should believe in you [Father], the only true God, and [in] Jesus Christ whom you sent!’ John 17:3

I am not threatened by truth. However if you fail to explain yourself, it doesn't come across well from your angle. Jesus did not raise allegations against people without explaining himself. You should put more effort into explaining yourself rather than condemning people.

Should I be saying: maybe and couldbe and if this and if that... Debates are typically anachronistic - are you fear filled by hearing your views damned for the nonsense that may be expressed at times??

No. I am just rather irritated that you spend time condemning rather than explaining yourself. You'll note that Jesus only reserved his condemnation for those who faked their religion, not those who didn't grasp his every subtle point. Low trinitarianism is not a point for condemnation. If it were so, Jesus would have condemned Thomas for saying "My Lord and My God" to him. He received no rebuke.

It's not as though I'm preaching the philosophiocal trinity am I? I mean you couldn't even think that from what I have said.

Or do you just want people to agree with you... that’s not debate then, is it? Perhaps you should be in the section marked, ‘Discussion’!!?Oh dear... I see now why you fear opposition!!! This verse is misplaced as evidence to what I was stating. Children of sinful man are still born in sin.

It sounds like you believe in the Manichaean doctrine of original sin espoused by Augustine. I don't believe in it.

Children are born into sin and into a sinful world. That is why they sin. They are not born in sin. The act of giving birth is not sinful, nor does the newborn baby sin by being born. If it's parents are pagan it will soon learn sinful ways.

Adam and Jesus are the only two humans born not from the seed of sinful Father but the breath of God’s Holy Spirit. The sanctified man or woman spoken of in the verse you quote refers to the sin resulting in ETERNAL DEATH that was awaiting ALL MANKIND whether they were good or not so good did to the sin of the first man, Adam.

I disagree. I do not accept that version of original sin you're preaching. Otherwise all babies would be condemned, which is absurd. Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to little children. That is not to say that they are not sinful. It is to say that they are not condemned just for being born.

A child, is NO LONGER subject to ETERNAL DEATH if it is the offspring of at least one believing parent. NOTE: we are not CONDEMNING children in the SECULAR WORLD... this is purely SPIRITUAL theology.

No child is "subject to eternal death." The only thing that is subject to eternal death is the culpable sinner.Rev 21:8.

 

[sojourner]

Didn't Jesus say the stones could cry out if the disciples wouldn't?

Isn't one of the Four Horsemen "Famine?"

What does that have to do with my post???

 

[sojourner]

You claim you didn’t claim all of those things... so which ones DID you claim...

Moreover, since you swear by the doctrine, then anything the doctrine states is also YOUR CLAIM.

Where did I ever say that I "swear by the doctrine?" I've defended it as a valid, theological proposition, but I've never claimed it as an ontological truth.

This is another example of your style of twisting and making false claims.

 

[Soapy]

I would disagree as I have often said that the Father is the only "true God." Never have I once called Jesus "God." How then can I appear trinitarianistic? It is a premise of all trinitarians that "Jesus is God."

Then you need to keep saying it and not sway to the left or the right.

There are at least two in this thread who believe in the truth that Jesus is a Man of humanity who was born holy and sinless being enlivened in the body by the spirit of the one true God: the Father. This is clear from scriptures.

Jesus, anointed with the same spirit of the One True God: the Father, and completely and loyalty following every instruction and command of the Father: YHWH GOD, is therefore truly called, ‘Son of God’. Thus, by extension:

• ‘All who follow the Spirit [of the Father, of God] are children [sons] of God’ (Romans 8:14)

which qualifies Jesus’ words to the Jews who accused him of calling himself ‘God’:

• “Why do you say I blaspheme when I say that I am God’s son. What then do you say of the one the Father sanctified (Anointed / set aside for kingship and/or priesthood) and sent into the world? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;“ (John 10:36-37)

If you are arguing any other Jesus then you argue a false Jesus. And if you are NOT disagreeing with the other truth speakers (regarding Jesus and the Father) then what are the issues you don’t see as regards the relationship between the sanctified human sonship of Jesus with his spiritual Father: YHWH GOD?

The only trinity is a philosophical trinity. I don't think I've ever preached it. To say that Jesus and the Father were distinguishable is not to preach the philosophical trinity.

Truth speakers never consider that Jesus and the Father are distinguishable... the aspect is only raised if brought to the table by non-truth speakers or those of mistaken belief (or both). Jesus was born a flesh, blood, and bone human being in the manner of the first Adam... hence Jesus is called, ‘the Last Adam’.... And the Father is a Spirit Being... not subject to human frailties like the Son... Jesus CAN BE TEMPTED (though defied it)... The Father CANNOT BE TEMPTED... (Temptation demands the desire of something not already possessed. What could the Father be tempted with that he did not already own?)

I am not threatened by truth. However if you fail to explain yourself, it doesn't come across well from your angle. Jesus did not raise allegations against people without explaining himself. You should put more effort into explaining yourself rather than condemning people.

I guess you’ve not seen my posts - they are extensive in explaining the truth. It is the fallacies and wrongful ideologies that I condemn. If you feel you are personally being condemned then look for the untruth and misunderstanding in what you say... it is THAT that I am contending with.

No. I am just rather irritated that you spend time condemning rather than explaining yourself. You'll note that Jesus only reserved his condemnation for those who faked their religion, not those who didn't grasp his every subtle point. Low trinitarianism is not a point for condemnation. If it were so, Jesus would have condemned Thomas for saying "My Lord and My God" to him. He received no rebuke.

Jesus DID ‘condemn’ those who did not understand ... but Jesus didn’t come to ‘CONDEMN’ the world... he came to set a wedge between Father and son, daughter and mother, believers and unbelievers, so as to show who is HIS and who is NOT HIS ‘Sheep’.

And Thomas... I say, ‘Gak!!!’ whenever I hear what you say (or similar) spoken of Thomas. I mean, goodness... what can you not see in Jesus’ words thrown back to him:

• “Thomas, have you ONLY BELIEVED BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN [AND TOUCHED] [Me]?...”

Are you saying this is glorifying Thomas? Oh dear, NO NO NO!!! Jesus NEXT SENTENCE states the FACTS:

• “BLESSED are those who HAVE NOT SEEN [NOR TOUCHED] [Me] AND YET BELIEVE”

Jesus was NOT BLESSING THOMAS... Jesus condemned Thomas for REQUIRING PROOF. Thomas was one who walked and talked with Jesus, was subject to the intimate teachings of Jesus, broke bread with him... and yet refused initially to believe in Jesus’ resurrection.

And note carefully: Thomas was NOT one of those who Jesus ‘blew on’ and said: ‘Receive ye the holy Spirit’ (John 20:22)

It's not as though I'm preaching the philosophiocal trinity am I? I mean you couldn't even think that from what I have said.

It sounds like you believe in the Manichaean doctrine of original sin espoused by Augustine. I don't believe in it.

What I believe has no earthly name. It is just, truth. I have never heard or not claim any name of ‘Manichaean doctrine’.

The ‘original sin’ that I speak of is simply that Adam brought sin into the world... this is Scriptures... And that God condemned ALL MANKIND to ETERNAL DEATH because of it. God relented in immediate destruction if a pure blood sacrifice could be found from among mankind to atone for the sin of Adam. This is also scriptures - the blood sacrifice of animals attests to this (Hebrews 10:1-4)

Children are born into sin and into a sinful world. That is why they sin. They are not born in sin. The act of giving birth is not sinful, nor does the newborn baby sin by being born. If it's parents are pagan it will soon learn sinful ways.

I disagree. I do not accept that version of original sin you're preaching. Otherwise all babies would be condemned, which is absurd. Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to little children. That is not to say that they are not sinful. It is to say that they are not condemned just for being born.

No child is "subject to eternal death." The only thing that is subject to eternal death is the culpable sinner.Rev 21:8.

The ETERNAL DEATH for all mankind was removed by a Jesus’ atoning death. This is Scriptures.

Now, we are ALL responsible for OUR OWN SINS. We are now no longer condemned by the sin of Adam. All flesh is IN SIN... but we are given to hear the word of God given by ‘the man like us’, Jesus Christ, and abstain as best we can. God has seen that no one of mankind born of a human Father, is completely guiltless.. so he has set aside some sins as worthy of eternal death; and some sins as NOT worthy of eternal death - for our sakes (1 John 5:17)

The most I can say about children is that, true, they may not sin by being born, but sin is inherent in all mankind due to our own free will. Every child is SUBJECT to sin... and ultimately WILL SIN - and that is why God provides REPENTANCE and FORGIVENESS if the child/adult truly confesses his sins and repents!!

 

[Soapy]

Where did I ever say that I "swear by the doctrine?" I've defended it as a valid, theological proposition, but I've never claimed it as an ontological truth.

This is another example of your style of twisting and making false claims.

Wow, sojourner, you are a master of pedantic?

The term, ‘swear by’ is used to express the strong holding onto and unwavering proclivity towards (in your case) your ‘Trinity Doctrine’ (though you most only say, ‘the doctrine’)

But, sojourner, your last few posts are just defensive expositions which actually show you denying everything you were claiming... you, hiding behind EXACT WORDINGS!

 

[sojourner]

Wow, sojourner, you are a master of pedantic?

The term, ‘swear by’ is used to express the strong holding onto and unwavering proclivity towards (in your case) your ‘Trinity Doctrine’ (though you most only say, ‘the doctrine’)

But, sojourner, your last few posts are just defensive expositions which actually show you denying everything you were claiming... you, hiding behind EXACT WORDINGS!

No, I'm denying everything you incorrectly say I claim. I don't, in fact, "hold strongly" the doctrine of the Trinity. But I know what it is and what it says (unlike you), and it is a valid theological proposition, despite what you say. You have presented no strong argument against it, and it's that strong bias and shoddy argumentation I argue against.

 

[Soapy]

No, I'm denying everything you incorrectly say I claim. I don't, in fact, "hold strongly" the doctrine of the Trinity. But I know what it is and what it says (unlike you), and it is a valid theological proposition, despite what you say. You have presented no strong argument against it, and it's that strong bias and shoddy argumentation I argue against.

Oh... so now you “don’t, in fact, hold strongly to the doctrine of the trinity”.

Very interesting... v-e-r-y interesting...!

But I’m glad to hear that you don’t hold strongly to it because you were making a right hash of trying to defend it.

 

[sojourner]

Oh... so now you “don’t, in fact, hold strongly to the doctrine of the trinity”.

Very interesting... v-e-r-y interesting...!

But I’m glad to hear that you don’t hold strongly to it because you were making a right hash of trying to defend it.

It deserves to be defended, because it is a legitimate theological position. And your "argument" needed put away as the straw man it is.

 

[eik]

Then you need to keep saying it and not sway to the left or the right.

There are at least two in this thread who believe in the truth that Jesus is a Man of humanity who was born holy and sinless being enlivened in the body by the spirit of the one true God: the Father. This is clear from scriptures.

Jesus was born no differently to any other human being. He had a human mother. Jesus was no more sinless at birth than anyone else.

Jesus, anointed with the same spirit of the One True God: the Father, and completely and loyalty following every instruction and command of the Father: YHWH GOD, is therefore truly called, ‘Son of God’. Thus, by extension:

• ‘All who follow the Spirit [of the Father, of God] are children [sons] of God’ (Romans 8:14)

which qualifies Jesus’ words to the Jews who accused him of calling himself ‘God’:

• “Why do you say I blaspheme when I say that I am God’s son. What then do you say of the one the Father sanctified (Anointed / set aside for kingship and/or priesthood) and sent into the world? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;“ (John 10:36-37)

If you are arguing any other Jesus then you argue a false Jesus. And if you are NOT disagreeing with the other truth speakers (regarding Jesus and the Father) then what are the issues you don’t see as regards the relationship between the sanctified human sonship of Jesus with his spiritual Father: YHWH GOD?Truth speakers never consider that Jesus and the Father are distinguishable... the aspect is only raised if brought to the table by non-truth speakers or those of mistaken belief (or both).

The aspect was raised by Jesus himself who deferred to himself as the "son of God." It was Jesus himself who distinguished himself from the Father by casting the Father as "true God."

Distinguishing Jesus from his father is a counter-argument against philosophical trinitarianism, not an argument in favour of trinitarianism.

I think if I am not mistaken that you are confusing trinitarianism with (a) the imputation of complexity to God, (b) anything that denies Modalistic Monarchianism, which admits of God only as a singular spirit.

Your definition of trinitarianism is thus far too wide. Trinitarianism is a philosophical belief in the autonomous divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit separate from the divinity of the Father. This is what Jesus never taught and the bible does not teach,

Jesus was born a flesh, blood, and bone human being in the manner of the first Adam... hence Jesus is called, ‘the Last Adam’.... And the Father is a Spirit Being... not subject to human frailties like the Son... Jesus CAN BE TEMPTED (though defied it)... The Father CANNOT BE TEMPTED... (Temptation demands the desire of something not already possessed. What could the Father be tempted with that he did not already own?)I guess you’ve not seen my posts - they are extensive in explaining the truth. It is the fallacies and wrongful ideologies that I condemn. If you feel you are personally being condemned then look for the untruth and misunderstanding in what you say... it is THAT that I am contending with.Jesus DID ‘condemn’ those who did not understand ...

But you're engaging condemnation over very subtle points concerning YOUR theology. Jesus reserved his condemnation for immorality. In words, we should never use anathemas to reinforce our own opinions in subtle points of theology, which for you is presumably Oneness Pentacostalism.

but Jesus didn’t come to ‘CONDEMN’ the world... he came to set a wedge between Father and son, daughter and mother, believers and unbelievers, so as to show who is HIS and who is NOT HIS ‘Sheep’.

And Thomas... I say, ‘Gak!!!’ whenever I hear what you say (or similar) spoken of Thomas. I mean, goodness... what can you not see in Jesus’ words thrown back to him:

• “Thomas, have you ONLY BELIEVED BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN [AND TOUCHED] [Me]?...”

Are you saying this is glorifying Thomas? Oh dear, NO NO NO!!! Jesus NEXT SENTENCE states the FACTS:

• “BLESSED are those who HAVE NOT SEEN [NOR TOUCHED] [Me] AND YET BELIEVE”

Jesus was NOT BLESSING THOMAS... Jesus condemned Thomas for REQUIRING PROOF. Thomas was one who walked and talked with Jesus, was subject to the intimate teachings of Jesus, broke bread with him... and yet refused initially to believe in Jesus’ resurrection.

The point I am making is that Thomas was not condemned for calling Jesus "my Lord and my God." There was no attempt to rebuke a potentially erroneous trinitarian strain of thought. He was rebuked for slowness of belief, I'll concur.

And note carefully: Thomas was NOT one of those who Jesus ‘blew on’ and said: ‘Receive ye the holy Spirit’ (John 20:22)What I believe has no earthly name. It is just, truth. I have never heard or not claim any name of ‘Manichaean doctrine’.

Manichaeanism was a dualist heretical doctrine that imputed matter with being evil and associated salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truth. So sins against doctrinal correctness were deemed especially heinious, but also many ordinary activities associated with material things were deemed sinful also (including procreation). This attitude was imported into Christianity by the Roman Catholics through the church fathers such as Augustine, who was himself a Manichaean before "conversion" to Christianity. Augustine corrupted Christianity considerably IMO. In Manichaeanism knowledge is the only way to salvation.

The doctrine of original sin that says that "sin was inherited" from Adam is especially Manichaean in nature because it identifies the flesh directly with sin, whereas the Christian doctrine is that it is what lives in your flesh that is sinful.

Rom 7:18. 25 in translating sarx as "sinful nature" in some bible translations is wrong, as promoting the Manichaean doctrine. The word means "flesh."

Rom 7:18 "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

The flesh is not eponymous with "sin" (as in sinful nature) but with thwarting the desire to do good. The sin is commited when the mind surrenders to or is controlled by the flesh to do things against the conscience.

Why? Just because sin is "in the world." The mind is weak and follows the sinful traits of others.

The ‘original sin’ that I speak of is simply that Adam brought sin into the world... this is Scriptures... And that God condemned ALL MANKIND to ETERNAL DEATH because of it.

Absolutely not. Man is not arbitrarily condemned to "eternal death" just because sin is in the world. Man is condemned whenever God brings his sin into account,

Eternal death is a judgement of God reserved for the day of judgement, where the "second death" will be meted out. All will be judged either under the law or apart from the law (Rom 2:12).

Rom 5:13 "For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law."

So not every sin will result in a final judgement of second death. Some sins clearly will.

God relented in immediate destruction if a pure blood sacrifice could be found from among mankind to atone for the sin of Adam. This is also scriptures - the blood sacrifice of animals attests to this (Hebrews 10:1-4)The ETERNAL DEATH for all mankind was removed by a Jesus’ atoning death. This is Scriptures.

Eternal death is just the sentence on untrammeled sin, but it wasn't the case that everyone was guilty of untrammeled sin (cf. Cornelius the Roman centurion). Jesus paved the way for many in all nations to repent of their sins, something that wasn't possible under the old system.

Now, we are ALL responsible for OUR OWN SINS. We are now no longer condemned by the sin of Adam. All flesh is IN SIN... but we are given to hear the word of God given by ‘the man like us’, Jesus Christ, and abstain as best we can. God has seen that no one of mankind born of a human Father, is completely guiltless.. so he has set aside some sins as worthy of eternal death; and some sins as NOT worthy of eternal death - for our sakes (1 John 5:17)

The most I can say about children is that, true, they may not sin by being born, but sin is inherent in all mankind due to our own free will. Every child is SUBJECT to sin... and ultimately WILL SIN - and that is why God provides REPENTANCE and FORGIVENESS if the child/adult truly confesses his sins and repents!!

We always were responsible for our own sins. No-one could blame Adam for sin that was theirs alone.

I would say "sin is latent" in all mankind. 1 Pet 5:18 "Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to destroy."

Yes I agree every child will sin and that God provides the answer.

 

[Soapy]

It deserves to be defended, because it is a legitimate theological position. And your "argument" needed put away as the straw man it is.

’legitimate theological position’?

Well, if you are pagan or heathen then you are right?

However, we don’t profess to be pagan or heathen so your claim that it is defensible is false.

The defence would put Jesus in the category of ‘Another Jesus preached’

The Father would be degraded in his great works.

The singularity of the words, ‘One’, and ‘Only’, would be destroyed... ‘One’ and ‘Only’ cannot mean ‘Three’.

In fact, by trinity doctrine, the whole elementary aspect of mathematics and fundamental language (English in this case) is pulled to pieces because now:

• God, who is one, is actually three
• Jesus and the Father are ‘one’ but this means ‘Three’
• ‘We’ and ‘Us’ must always mean ‘Three’
• ‘Alone’ means ‘Together’
• ‘God’ has no definition, to speak of (you refused to give a credible definition of the term when asked)
• ‘Lord’, you say, is interchangeable with ‘God’, which was demonstrated would lead to all manner of absurdities
  
• ‘Equal’ means ‘Ranked’
• ‘God’ is ‘Essence’ (but no definition is given for ‘Essence’ so no understanding is forthcoming on this claim)

All systems designed with multiple superior heads are shown to become dysfunctional - ultimately it is found that proper functionality demands ‘ONE superior head’.

The trinity doctrine came to realise that it is impossible for there to be three superior heads (three GODS) and designed as an addition the clearly hurriedly PATCHED: ‘But these three are not three Gods but one God’.

The doctrine has to go to painful efforts to say why there is an INFERIOR ‘God’ in their three ‘One God’ claims by an absurdity of monumental proportions in:

• The three are RANKED... Father first, Son, then Holy Spirit

Trinity doctrine cannot explain how three completely equal persons can be RANKED against themselves...

And ‘Essence’... The three SHARE in the Essence ... so we are to imagine that ‘God’ is a ‘Calum’, ‘organisation, ‘Society’, ‘Liquid’, ... which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are MEMBERS .. which puts ‘God’ as a Separate element surrounding, overarching, consuming, a container, for the three persons... but yet it appears that this ‘God... Essence’ can do things to those within itself... such as:

• Speak to humanity
• Create and destroy
• Be angered
• Raise one of its members from a death state
• Have a member seated next to it...

The absurdity is so great the whole of a municipal library could be filled with the fallacy outpourings.

The one main question that I find trinity doctrine upholders refuse to give any credible answer to it:

• What is the point or purpose to Jesus acquiring the throne of King David within the created world when, by trinity, Jesus is ALMIGHTY GOD who is already the owner and Lord over creation - and GOD over heaven which is a greater kingdom than the created world WITHIN the heavenly realm??
• Surely, the created physical world, which is within the kingdom of heaven, and has man as it’s Lord from the beginning, is to be headed up with A MAN as it’s ‘Ultimate Head’? The ‘earth’ was created for the image of God to rule (image of essence?? Doh!)

The Spirit rules the Spirit realm: the Flesh rules the Flesh realm... obvious, right?? Jesus will be ruler over the created world, right.. Jesus is THE IMAGE OF GOD to rule over the created world... Jesus is MAN! Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn't one of the Four Horsemen "Famine?"

What does that have to do with my post???

Because if God could make the rocks cry out, then they too would be "divine."

 

[YoursTrue]

It deserves to be defended, because it is a legitimate theological position. And your "argument" needed put away as the straw man it is.

OK but the eternal damnation part...that changed?

 

[sojourner]

’legitimate theological position’?

Well, if you are pagan or heathen then you are right?

However, we don’t profess to be pagan or heathen so your claim that it is defensible is false.

The defence would put Jesus in the category of ‘Another Jesus preached’

The Father would be degraded in his great works.

The singularity of the words, ‘One’, and ‘Only’, would be destroyed... ‘One’ and ‘Only’ cannot mean ‘Three’.

In fact, by trinity doctrine, the whole elementary aspect of mathematics and fundamental language (English in this case) is pulled to pieces because now:

• God, who is one, is actually three
• Jesus and the Father are ‘one’ but this means ‘Three’
• ‘We’ and ‘Us’ must always mean ‘Three’
• ‘Alone’ means ‘Together’
• ‘God’ has no definition, to speak of (you refused to give a credible definition of the term when asked)
• ‘Lord’, you say, is interchangeable with ‘God’, which was demonstrated would lead to all manner of absurdities
  
• ‘Equal’ means ‘Ranked’
• ‘God’ is ‘Essence’ (but no definition is given for ‘Essence’ so no understanding is forthcoming on this claim)

All systems designed with multiple superior heads are shown to become dysfunctional - ultimately it is found that proper functionality demands ‘ONE superior head’.

The trinity doctrine came to realise that it is impossible for there to be three superior heads (three GODS) and designed as an addition the clearly hurriedly PATCHED: ‘But these three are not three Gods but one God’.

The doctrine has to go to painful efforts to say why there is an INFERIOR ‘God’ in their three ‘One God’ claims by an absurdity of monumental proportions in:

• The three are RANKED... Father first, Son, then Holy Spirit

Trinity doctrine cannot explain how three completely equal persons can be RANKED against themselves...

And ‘Essence’... The three SHARE in the Essence ... so we are to imagine that ‘God’ is a ‘Calum’, ‘organisation, ‘Society’, ‘Liquid’, ... which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are MEMBERS .. which puts ‘God’ as a Separate element surrounding, overarching, consuming, a container, for the three persons... but yet it appears that this ‘God... Essence’ can do things to those within itself... such as:

• Speak to humanity
• Create and destroy
• Be angered
• Raise one of its members from a death state
• Have a member seated next to it...

The absurdity is so great the whole of a municipal library could be filled with the fallacy outpourings.

The one main question that I find trinity doctrine upholders refuse to give any credible answer to it:

• What is the point or purpose to Jesus acquiring the throne of King David within the created world when, by trinity, Jesus is ALMIGHTY GOD who is already the owner and Lord over creation - and GOD over heaven which is a greater kingdom than the created world WITHIN the heavenly realm??
• Surely, the created physical world, which is within the kingdom of heaven, and has man as it’s Lord from the beginning, is to be headed up with A MAN as it’s ‘Ultimate Head’? The ‘earth’ was created for the image of God to rule (image of essence?? Doh!)

The Spirit rules the Spirit realm: the Flesh rules the Flesh realm... obvious, right?? Jesus will be ruler over the created world, right.. Jesus is THE IMAGE OF GOD to rule over the created world... Jesus is MAN! Right?

You just don't seem to get that your assumptions aren't always or necessarily true. You just don't seem to get that this isn't a mathematical proof, nor an ontological statement. This is a theological proposition. It has a Biblical basis -- like all other theological propositions. You're still misquoting and misrepresenting the doctrine to "show" that it's "invalid."

All your bluster and faux-"logic" cannot make this go away as a legitimate theological statement.

 

[sojourner]

Because if God could make the rocks cry out, then they too would be "divine."

Wha...? God doesn't "make rocks cry out." And even if God did, that act wouldn't make the rocks "divine."

 

[sojourner]

OK but the eternal damnation part...that changed?

I thought we'd already covered that subject?

 

[Soapy]

Jesus was born no differently to any other human being. He had a human mother. Jesus was no more sinless at birth than anyone else.

Oh dear ... oh dear... I’m not sure if you read what you just wrote but this is what I was alluding to concerning your claims.

You say that Jesus was born no different to any other human being... he had a human mother...!!!

So what about a HUMAN FATHER? You don’t mention the Father from whom all normal human being are generated. You use the term, ‘born from’ to hide the Father part because all humans are ‘BORN’ (birthed) by a mother (we not talking modern IVF, incubators, testtube, etc...!).

Why did you not consider that Mary ‘did not know a man’ (we know what that meant!!) and that scriptures says the child would be conceived by the ‘overshadowing by the Holy Spirit’ - not by a human Father... were you afraid? Or dismissive? Or in ignorance of this?

Of course, you also dismiss the fact that ADAM did not have a Human Father... so your claim that Jesus was born just like any other human being is false (given that even less than a ‘mother birthing’, Adam did not have a mother to be birthed from).

The reality is this:

• Spiritually, Conception is of an inert body being enlivened by the impregnating of a living Spirit
• Adam’s body was, in terms of ‘living’, inert.. the dust of the earth
• The body was shaped by Angels but was not a living body
• It was ENLIVENED by the overshadowing of the holy spirit of God (The technical, physical details are unknown to us and the breath put into his body is, of course, a spiritual matter)
• And thence, Adam BECAME A LIVING SOUL

And so, likewise with Jesus:

• The seed (egg, the potential BODY material) of the Virgin, Mary, was INERT... you know your human biology: if us expelled unceremoniously on a monthly basis from the woman to the ground (as good as!) it is not classed the same the sperm of a man
• You know also from your biology class that the sperm is a LIVING entity - only when IT (one of over 3 million like it) impregnate the seed does the seed BECOMES A LIVING EMBRYO
• But in both Adam’s and Jesus’ case there was no enlivening sperm - the ‘seed’, the BODY material, was enlivened by the HOLY SPIRIT...
• Human Sperm impregnating is the means of the Spiritual sin inheritance... Because Adam and Jesus were not Fathered by a human sperm they were BOTH HOLY AND SINLESS - true Sons of God in terms of their righteousness towards their spiritual father (Luke 3:38, Luke 1:35)

The aspect was raised by Jesus himself who deferred to himself as the "son of God." It was Jesus himself who distinguished himself from the Father by casting the Father as "true God."

This is true... but SCRIPTURES also paints Jesus as being the ‘Servant’ spoken of in Isaiah 42:1 wherein God said:

• “The one whom I uphold” : “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased”
• he would put his spirit upon him (the servant): “The Holy Spirit alighted on him in the manner of a dove”
• More...

The shepherds, the Wise Men, John the Baptist, Anna, demon angels, etc, acknowledged him as “The Son of God” so it wasn’t just Jesus alone...

Distinguishing Jesus from his father is a counter-argument against philosophical trinitarianism, not an argument in favour of trinitarianism.

Im not understanding what you are saying here but having to make a distinction between God and Jesus is only an aspect forced to debate with Trinitarians. To those like myself, the Father is Almighty God: YHWH, the one and only TRUE GOD. Jesus is a man made in the flesh IMAGE of God and remaining true to the image - meaning: righteous, holy, and sinless.. living the good and hating the bad!

I think if I am not mistaken that you are confusing trinitarianism with (a) the imputation of complexity to God, (b) anything that denies Modalistic Monarchianism, which admits of God only as a singular spirit.

Nope, I have one definition of trinitarianism, and that is those who believe that Jesus is God or that there are three who are God or that Jesus is all three at different or same time or any combination of these. They are all one category to me: the Fallacy Category!!

Your definition of trinitarianism is thus far too wide. Trinitarianism is a philosophical belief in the autonomous divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit separate from the divinity of the Father. This is what Jesus never taught and the bible does not teach,

See previous comment.

But you're engaging condemnation over very subtle points concerning YOUR theology. Jesus reserved his condemnation for immorality. In words, we should never use anathemas to reinforce our own opinions in subtle points of theology, which for you is presumably Oneness Pentacostalism.

I most certainly know about oneness, ChristAdelphian, Jesus-only, modalism, Pentecostal, ... but not all of them - but I don’t need to ... if any were to say: ‘Jesus is a man born holy and sinless by the spirit of almighty God’ then I would start listening and analysing for integrity with scriptures.

The point I am making is that Thomas was not condemned for calling Jesus "my Lord and my God." There was no attempt to rebuke a potentially erroneous trinitarian strain of thought. He was rebuked for slowness of belief, I'll concur.

You still believe that ‘My Lord and My God’ is trinitarian ... amazing... and you are debating scriptures??? What did Thomas see in Jesus that would make him imagine he was SEEING GOD? Wasn’t it a fact of belief that Not one had seen God at any time...’ and further, if they DID they would instantly die ... The sinless and holiness of God meant ‘God cannot look upon sin[ful flesh] and hence he put in place a MEDIATOR - a shield between sinful flesh and sinless Spirit.

Thomas has heard what was said to Philip: ‘If you see me then you see the Father also!’. But what did Jesus mean by this? Simple: the IMAGE Jesus presents to fleshly mankind is a reflection of the SPIRIT of his Father... Amen... What HIS FATHER DOES so he, Jesus, does. I have a son, and many a time it has been said by him that someone said to him: ‘Wow, I see your Father in you! You do just as your Father does!’... now that might not have been a compliment ....!! But in Jesus’ case it is total compliment that he is like his spiritual Father..

So, Thomas, knowing Jewish culture and religious belief, could NEVER have been claiming that Her saw Almighty God’, but rather, much more like: ‘I see MY GOD in you, MY LORD!

Just check what the other ten disciples did? Did they fall down and worship Jesus, seeing that Thomas is supposed to have identified Jesus as Almighty God??? Were they shocked that THEY hadn’t recognised ALMIGHTY GOD - even Peter, and John (‘the self proclaimed, ‘the Disciple Jesus loved’!)? No!!

And if almighty God had appeared in front of 11 disciples, why did they go back to their day job only days later. And why would almighty God need broiled fish?

Manichaeanism was a dualist heretical doctrine that imputed matter with being evil and associated salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truth. So sins against doctrinal correctness were deemed especially heinious, but also many ordinary activities associated with material things were deemed sinful also (including procreation). This attitude was imported into Christianity by the Roman Catholics through the church fathers such as Augustine, who was himself a Manichaean before "conversion" to Christianity. Augustine corrupted Christianity considerably IMO. In Manichaeanism knowledge is the only way to salvation.

Well, whatever that complex system and doctrine is, I’m not associated with it - I certainly don’t subscribe to ‘knowledge only’.
[end part 1... part 2 follows)

 

[Soapy]

....(part 2)

The doctrine of original sin that says that "sin was inherited" from Adam is especially Manichaean in nature because it identifies the flesh directly with sin, whereas the Christian doctrine is that it is what lives in your flesh that is sinful.

Rom 7:18. 25 in translating sarx as "sinful nature" in some bible translations is wrong, as promoting the Manichaean doctrine. The word means "flesh."

Rom 7:18 "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

The flesh is not eponymous with "sin" (as in sinful nature) but with thwarting the desire to do good. The sin is commited when the mind surrenders to or is controlled by the flesh to do things against the conscience.

Why? Just because sin is "in the world." The mind is weak and follows the sinful traits of others.

Absolutely not. Man is not arbitrarily condemned to "eternal death" just because sin is in the world. Man is condemned whenever God brings his sin into account,

Eternal death is a judgement of God reserved for the day of judgement, where the "second death" will be meted out. All will be judged either under the law or apart from the law (Rom 2:12).

Rom 5:13 "For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law."

Im not sure why you are quoting this last verse seeing that it speaks of ‘acknowledging wrongness’ as a given law. It is an aspect of any wrongdoing that if you do not know you are doing wrong then you cannot be condemned for it... A child will QUICKLY learn when he innocently starts doing wrong - things he didn’t know were wrong! - because he will be chastised (by degrees!). The child can then decide if itself whether it continues to do wrong or give way to the LAW of nature or his parents or siblings. I.e. once the child is given the LAW he is no longer INNOCENT of his wrongdoing. BUT EVEN WITHOUT THE LAW we inherently understand RIGHT FROM WRONG but may not UNDERSTAND the implications. I’ve seen children gleefully damage an object yet simple looking at them and the damage made them start crying because they knew they did wrong... who told them it was wrong? No one - but they instinctively knew it was so!

So not every sin will result in a final judgement of second death. Some sins clearly will.

I think I said that... from what scriptures said!

Eternal death is just the sentence on untrammeled sin, but it wasn't the case that everyone was guilty of untrammeled sin (cf. Cornelius the Roman centurion). Jesus paved the way for many in all nations to repent of their sins, something that wasn't possible under the old system.


We always were responsible for our own sins. No-one could blame Adam for sin that was theirs alone.

I said that NOW we are only responsible for our own sin. David was the most holy of the forefathers but even he would have been subject to eternal death by the sin of Adam. Of course he did contract personal sin in addition because he had Uriah killed and took Uriah’s wife... God punished him by ‘taking away’ David’s first son by Uriah’s wife... David’s deep deep repentance was enough for God to reinstate him as ‘most loved’ and establish his throne for eternity.

I would say "sin is latent" in all mankind. 1 Pet 5:18 "Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to destroy."

Yes I agree every child will sin and that God provides the answer.

... God provides the answer to sin in that he gave us repentance, the way of life through the sin of man, Jesus Christ, belief in the testimony (Rev 1:1), and Faith (like a child believes what its parents tells them.

Consider these verses:

• “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)
• “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12)
• “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Hebrews 2:9)
  
• “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Hebrews 9:12)

You should be able to read from these sample verses that the death of Jesus stones for the eternal sin of Adam and, as I said, we are now only responsible for our own sin.... ELSE WHAT PURPOSE DID JESUS’ DEATH SERVE... and in regard to the yearly animal sacrifice that was designed as a substitute for such but ineffective in that if it was not a substitute, a single ceremony would have served as the atonement: no, it was the pure blood of a sinless and holy MAN that was required!!!