Jesus - First Born?

[Soapy]

No Soapy....I just think you posted your link on the wrong thread.

Your thread is titled "Jesus - First Born?" and your OP led with the following statement:



Since I, as a trinitarian, do not believe this, nor have I known or read of any trinitarian who did, it got me interested. I figured this was a typo of some sort... a statement that you meant as a question. I didn't expect you to double down on it.

This is why I asked you to cite a source or explain what you meant. I also made it clear that, as written, no church or trinitarian doctrine I am aware of claims Jesus was born as the first of all creation. The terms "born" and "first-born" will have different meanings, both in Hebrew and Greek, depending on how they are used contextually.



I'm still looking for the promised discussion on prototokos ( first-born) that you started. I believe the discussion on monogenes (begotten) is somewhere down the hall.



Now, now Soapy!

A failure on your part to read does not mean there was a failure on our part to explain.

As I stated previously, there have been thousands upon thousands of publications published on this very subject. There is no reason for you NOT to understand.

But I've made this REAL easy for you.

You had questions about "begotten" after reading an article from a Catholic site. I am Protestant, not Catholic, so I am going to send you to a Catholic site to get answers.

This is such an easy read that I am SURE you will have no problem understanding it:

View attachment 78770

If the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father, then how can he also be born of Mary?

If you have any follow up question, you can simply query them to get additional answers. There is a SEARCH BAR right on top! What could be simpler?

Now that I've explained and cited a reputable source where YOU can get answers, can you return the favor and do the same for the rest of US?

For example, where do we find your source that Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation? It's certainly not at Catholic Answers.




Well, now, remember....you did ask!...

“For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6​

The question is not why we believe our creator should be called Father, it's more why you believe he shouldn't. This doesn't have anything to do with your stated belief that Satan had a hand in man's creation, does it?

Okay Soapy. I've answered your questions even though it appears you won't undertake even the most modest attempt to answer mine. I've even gone so far as to show you where you can get answers to Catholic nomenclature on the Trinity. I believe the site targets an eighth grade reading level, but that should be of no concern to you.

Now please, be nice and do the same for us. Show us where we can find this "Trinitarian belief" that Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation".

Oh, every post you make in this thread shows exactly what I said Trinitarians do.

You say you are Protestant… Was Protestant a foundational Christian belief?

What must a person believe to be called ‘a Christian’ in the trinitarian ideology?

Is it not that Jesus was begotten of God before the world was created and that through Jesus the world was created. In effect, God created Jesus but it wasn’t a creation; Jesus was “born but not created”.

Hmmm.., Ot seems to me that you are prepared to believe the trinitarian declaration of faith but refuse to acknowledge it in debate.

Trinitarianism still exists exactly because it has an innate ability to modify its ideology in expression while retaining the fallacy it wishes it could distance itself from.

Trinity belief is that GOD created the world and all within THROUGH Jesus.

But Trinity belief is ALSO that Jesus IS GOD!

But Jesus is clearly LESS THAN GOD since GOD has presidency over Jesus, using Jesus (in trinity claims) as secondary agent of creation.

But God is never a secondary agent!

To attempt an explanation for this clear conundrum, absolute dichotomy, massive contradiction, and sheer ludicrousness, Trinitarians claim that God is divided into three persons:

The head person is called ‘Father’, which, strangely, means ‘CREATOR’, ‘Bringer into being’, ‘Life giver’.

The secondary person (secondary??) person is called ‘Son’ who, as Jesus stated emphatically, ‘Can only do what he sees his Father doing’!
Which raises the question of how the Son (Jesus) was THE CREATOR of the world if he had to first see his Father CREATE THE WORLD!!

And, of course, there is the bottom player, the so-called ‘Holy Spirit’, an overemphatic since the Spirit of God is by all definition ‘Holy’. But the Spirit of God is NOT A PERSON - it is exactly what it says on the tin: Spirit of God.

To attempt to further explain how GOD could be alone yet be together as three ‘persons’, trinity claims that though they are all persons independent of each other nevertheless they are all ONE GOD - each EQUAL TO EACH OTHER.

But that in itself is a contradiction since the Father uses the Son to create the world… If they are all equal to each other why did one use the other to do what the first wants to happen?

But notice also that the third person is nowhere claimed to be part of creation - Yet ‘In the beginning’ by the book of Genesis, there was only GOD (all three or just the Father: Creator) AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD!!

“Oh what terrible sticky web trinity spins
When it first started it’s scriptural sins”

Tell me: Are you just angry that trinity trollop is being exposed? That the nonsense that Trinitarians are forced to believe but which they hide from the world, is here being shown in all its decrepit absurdities?

To give you your due… You say Trinitarians do not believe what their creed demands them to believe,,, THAT’S GREAT!!! They don’t believe that NOW!!! At least not anyone who shows they oppose the conundrum that the Father of the trinity creed declared as a belief that must be believed or else it means eternal death!

Your posts here shows that Trinitarians recognise that trinity is false and that trinity purists are battling with trinity contemporary belief - Trinity; an evolving ideology!!

 

[Soapy]

OK good.
Do you think there is an uncreated spiritual realm? and what is supposed to be in this realm?

The uncreated Spirit realm is called ‘Heaven’.

And going to state this before you ask: ‘HEAVEN’ is not ‘HEAVENS’.

‘Heavens’ is the sky (Solar system), the galactic arena, and the universe as a whole.

So, no! God did not ‘Create HEAVEN’!

Creation is a material world (space earth) and limited by laws - laws of Physics… bounded, measurable and limited.

 

[Soapy]

I believe you are in error. there is no contradiction because the second statement is not true. One can 't say that Jesus was never born.

What do you mean?
For sure we do know we are not talking about Jesus being born of Mary. That’s kind of naive as your entry to this thread at this point?

Do you mean there are two Jesus’?

Do you mean there is one Jesus us God who was born but not created - and another that was created but not born?

Do you mean that ‘Begotten before the worlds’ does not mean ‘Born’?

If not then exactly what does ‘Begotten [of the Father] before the worlds’ mean?

‘Begotten, not created’… what does that mean?

‘Eternally Begotten’ - what does that mean?

 

[Muffled]

Can I ask:
Are you a trinitarian who believes that:

1. Jesus ‘created all things’?
2. Jesus was with God in the beginning
3. That Jesus was the FIRST BORN OF ALL CREATION?

1. I believe God in Jesus created all things. It is the identification of Jesus as God in the flesh that causes people to say that.
2. I do not believe that is the case but God in Jesus was at the beginning.
3. I believe Jesus is a creation that was born and that He was the first.

 

[Muffled]

What do you mean?
For sure we do know we are not talking about Jesus being born of Mary. That’s kind of naive as your entry to this thread at this point?

Do you mean there are two Jesus’?

Do you mean there is one Jesus us God who was born but not created - and another that was created but not born?

Do you mean that ‘Begotten before the worlds’ does not mean ‘Born’?

If not then exactly what does ‘Begotten [of the Father] before the worlds’ mean?

‘Begotten, not created’… what does that mean?

‘Eternally Begotten’ - what does that mean?

I believe you stated that Jesus was never born but that s false; Jesus was born.

I believe I am talking about that.

I believe Jesus is a common Jewish name but there is only one Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe Jesus was created and then born.

I believe I do not mean that.

I believe it means they got it wrong.

I believe I have no clue.

I believe you should realize that God is not created, begotten ,nor born. In Jesus the Spirit of God is connected to the body of Jesus at conception. That is when He becomes Jesus not when the body is created.

 

[Soapy]

I believe you stated that Jesus was never born but that s false; Jesus was born.

I believe I am talking about that.

I believe Jesus is a common Jewish name but there is only one Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe Jesus was created and then born.

I believe I do not mean that.

I believe it means they got it wrong.

I believe I have no clue.

I believe you should realize that God is not created, begotten ,nor born. In Jesus the Spirit of God is connected to the body of Jesus at conception. That is when He becomes Jesus not when the body is created.

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about!

 

[Oeste]

Oh, every post you make in this thread shows exactly what I said Trinitarians do.

Yes, and you were correct to point it out.

Trinitarians have this rather strange tendency to deny they've made statements that they themselves have never said. As a trinitarian, I find myself guilty of this at times, and I commend you for pointing this out to our dear and faithful readers.

You say you are Protestant… Was Protestant a foundational Christian belief?

That is correct...I am Protestant.

After abandoning the title, initial statement and lead in to the OP regarding "First-Born", you decided to move on to "begotten". You quoted a Catholic source for their understanding of "begotten" and had questions. I quoted another Catholic source to answer and rebut those questions.

I mention I am Protestant because I want to make it clear I am not Catholic nor do I speak for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is able to speak for itself, and I think their article on CatholicAnswers.com goes a long way in doing just that. As I pointed out, you can also get follow-up answers from Catholic sources simply by entering your question in the search bar.

Hmmm.., Ot seems to me that you are prepared to believe the trinitarian declaration of faith but refuse to acknowledge it in debate.

Your OP was about FIRST-BORN remember? That's why I asked you about it, and directed never answered questions to you.

Now, and very suddenly, you are talking about BEGOTTEN.

All this tells us is that you are prepared to abandon any discussion about BEGOTTEN just as quickly as you abandoned any discussion about FIRST-BORN, so why bother to engage in debate? Will we suddenly find you only willing to discuss BETROVED???

What must a person believe to be called ‘a Christian’ in the trinitarian ideology?

Trinity doctrine discusses the nature and being of God, not how to be called a Christian.

In effect, God created Jesus but it wasn’t a creation; Jesus was “born but not created”.

This idea you have, ... that God created Jesus....is not sourced in your reply, so I have no idea where it comes from. Worse, you appear to be suggesting this is some sort of Trinitarian belief, confusing the heresy of a created Jesus with the fact Jesus was born but not created.

If so, you are not bringing an argument against Trinitarians. You are Don Quixote, and you battle imaginary windmills, all of your own construction

But Trinity belief is ALSO that Jesus IS GOD!

Thank goodness...you got this right.

This is why I 've asked you to source things Soapy. No one wants to hear somebody go on a tirade about how Poland invaded Germany and Russia to start World War 2.

But Jesus is clearly LESS THAN GOD since GOD has presidency over Jesus, using Jesus (in trinity claims) as secondary agent of creation.

Where, in the Trinity doctrine, does it state GOD used JESUS as secondary agent of creation??? Where do you come up with this stuff Soapy.
It's nonsense!

Trinitarians claim that God is divided into three persons

No!

Trinitarians do NOT claim God is dividided into three persons.

Detractors, not Trinitarians, claim the Godhead is divided, but the doctrine is clear that while there are distinctions, there is no division.

That's something Soapy says, not Trinitarians. Please...learn to separate your beliefs from those of Trinitarians.

To attempt to further explain how GOD could be alone yet be together as three ‘persons’, trinity claims that though they are all persons independent of each other nevertheless they are all ONE GOD - each EQUAL TO EACH OTHER.

God was alone, because there are no Gods but God. I am glad we can agree on this Soapy.

“Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb: I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; (Isaiah 44:24)

But that in itself is a contradiction since the Father uses the Son to create the world…

I have no idea what verse you're citing because you never cite any verses.

Can you point us to the specific bible verse that states the Father uses the Son to create the world?

Also, do you really not see your quagmire, the pit you've just thrown your argument into???

You just told us God created the world ALONE, right after telling us He uses the SON!!!

How can the SON be used if the FATHER is ALONE? Is the Son nothing more than the Father's magic wand?

But notice also that the third person is nowhere claimed to be part of creation - Yet ‘In the beginning’ by the book of Genesis, there was only GOD (all three or just the Father: Creator) AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD!!

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit was MIA?

Let US create man in OUR image.... (Gen 1:26)

Whose "image" are we created in Soapy, and why is God referring to "Our" image when He created us by Himself?

Also, you claim the Holy Spirit is MIA here, yet there is no specific mention of Jesus being waved around like a magic wand so that the Father can create the universe "through" Jesus.

Is Jesus missing in action too? Where exactly is Jesus if the Father is all by Himself?

Lastly, why is the Father creating the universe "through" Jesus rather than "through" His "active force" or Spirit? Doesn't He need to wave around His "active force" more than He does Jesus if He's going to do all that creating?

 

[Soapy]

Yes, and you were correct to point it out.

Trinitarians have this rather strange tendency to deny they've made statements that they themselves have never said. As a trinitarian, I find myself guilty of this at times, and I commend you for pointing this out to our dear and faithful readers.



That is correct...I am Protestant.

After abandoning the title, initial statement and lead in to the OP regarding "First-Born", you decided to move on to "begotten". You quoted a Catholic source for their understanding of "begotten" and had questions. I quoted another Catholic source to answer and rebut those questions.

I mention I am Protestant because I want to make it clear I am not Catholic nor do I speak for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is able to speak for itself, and I think their article on CatholicAnswers.com goes a long way in doing just that. As I pointed out, you can also get follow-up answers from Catholic sources simply by entering your question in the search bar.



Your OP was about FIRST-BORN remember? That's why I asked you about it, and directed never answered questions to you.

Now, and very suddenly, you are talking about BEGOTTEN.

All this tells us is that you are prepared to abandon any discussion about BEGOTTEN just as quickly as you abandoned any discussion about FIRST-BORN, so why bother to engage in debate? Will we suddenly find you only willing to discuss BETROVED???



Trinity doctrine discusses the nature and being of God, not how to be called a Christian.



This idea you have, ... that God created Jesus....is not sourced in your reply, so I have no idea where it comes from. Worse, you appear to be suggesting this is some sort of Trinitarian belief, confusing the heresy of a created Jesus with the fact Jesus was born but not created.

If so, you are not bringing an argument against Trinitarians. You are Don Quixote, and you battle imaginary windmills, all of your own construction



Thank goodness...you got this right.

This is why I 've asked you to source things Soapy. No one wants to hear somebody go on a tirade about how Poland invaded Germany and Russia to start World War 2.



Where, in the Trinity doctrine, does it state GOD used JESUS as secondary agent of creation??? Where do you come up with this stuff Soapy.
It's nonsense!



No!

Trinitarians do NOT claim God is dividided into three persons.

Detractors, not Trinitarians, claim the Godhead is divided, but the doctrine is clear that while there are distinctions, there is no division.

That's something Soapy says, not Trinitarians. Please...learn to separate your beliefs from those of Trinitarians.



God was alone, because there are no Gods but God. I am glad we can agree on this Soapy.

“Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb: I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; (Isaiah 44:24)



I have no idea what verse you're citing because you never cite any verses.

Can you point us to the specific bible verse that states the Father uses the Son to create the world?

Also, do you really not see your quagmire, the pit you've just thrown your argument into???

You just told us God created the world ALONE, right after telling us He uses the SON!!!

How can the SON be used if the FATHER is ALONE? Is the Son nothing more than the Father's magic wand?



Where does it say that the Holy Spirit was MIA?

Let US create man in OUR image.... (Gen 1:26)

Whose "image" are we created in Soapy, and why is God referring to "Our" image when He created us by Himself?

Also, you claim the Holy Spirit is MIA here, yet there is no specific mention of Jesus being waved around like a magic wand so that the Father can create the universe "through" Jesus.

Is Jesus missing in action too? Where exactly is Jesus if the Father is all by Himself?

Lastly, why is the Father creating the universe "through" Jesus rather than "through" His "active force" or Spirit? Doesn't He need to wave around His "active force" more than He does Jesus if He's going to do all that creating?

This is wonderful… I love it (in a negative way). You are expressing every trinitarian trait I have ever come across (except for 101G, who is bafflement personified, and Muffled, who is rarely on point with anything.

I’m not in a position to respond point by point, but I see you are a dodger while claiming to be a straight talker.

It’s plain that ‘First-born of God’ and ‘Begotten of God BEFORE THE WORLDS’ are related terms. But since you see the connection you are seeking to distance yourself from the reality… excellent - Tick to trinitarianism!!!

Just in case you are trying to corner me; I have written EXTENSIVELY on the difference between ‘FIRSTBORN’ - and ‘FIRST BORN’ (or ‘FIRST-BORN)’. It is TRINITARIANS who cannot distinguish the difference when it comes to their claims.

And ALSO on ‘BEGOTTEN’, though why that is an issue at all is a puzzle since it has a SINGULAR MEANING (though in two way: Spiritual and Physical - which is always going to be an issue in interpretation).

A man ‘BEGETS’ a child in the flesh as an offspring of himself. But he can also ‘BEGET’ a child by ADOPTION.

Can you give an example of a begetting by adoption from the scriptures? Try Philemons 1.

But GOD cannot ‘BEGET’ because he is SPIRIT, and spirit can only ‘CREATE’.

Beget is from Begotten… Trinitarians I have debated with (I didn’t say you!!) have seemed oblivious of this simple relationship. And your defiance that no trinitarian thinks in the manner I point out to you just goes to show your are person-centric since you do exactly what I said: Deny what OTHER Trinitarians have said because you ‘Have never heard of before’ -typical trinitarian deflection and denial when the truth is shown them!

You also seem to have not know verses that claim against you - verses that are clear and obvious and have been presented time and time again. You demand a citation? Why don’t you know these verse - these claims???? Are you only now just discovering that which you are arguing against???

Jesus Christ didn’t cite exactly where in the Torah he quoted verses from. He might say, ‘Moses said’ or refer to the person associated (as in: GOD; Jonah; Abraham; David; Solomon, etc). The Jews would know where it was written - no one asked him to cite chapter and verse and page number and line number - though the Torah had none of these!?

Notice also Jesus said, ‘GOD said’… Jesus didn’t say, ‘I said’ in the Torah… he only said, ‘Moses SPIKE OF ME’, or ‘MOSES WROTE ABOUT ME’. Of course, many others wrote about him -Abraham, Isaiah, Ezekiel, David, …AS THE MESSIAH TO COME…. Never as an EXISTING or PRE-EXISTING Being!!

But back to the point in question.

My O.P. was designed to question the trinitarian ideology that ‘Jesus’ was the first of God’s creations and then that God used Jesus to create the world.

Trinitarians I have heavily debated with have tried to defend this claim using verses such as ‘God created me [Wisdom] as the first of his creations before the world was.

You will also see the similar trinitarian claim in Jesus telling the Jews that ‘Before Abraham, I am’ (which translates as ‘I was born before Abraham’). For in truth, if Jesus was ETERNAL, why… how… would it be a thing to compare the age of a human to that of [a] God?
Of course, the truth is that Jesus’ comment had nothing to do with being born: He was saying that he was indeed greater than Abraham since Abraham spoke OF HIM as being ‘One from his own loins’ who would be the Messiah.

You keep deflecting, calling yourself a Protestant, as a way to distance yourself from claims made by ‘CATHOLIC’ Trinitarians. I asked you if Protestantism was a foundation Christian belief but you dodged that as an answer so I guess that means ‘No’. This means that Protestantism is built on the SIDE of Catholicism and therefore is sided with them: One building, two rooms of that building.

The claims of ‘ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN’… ‘Forever being BORN’ from God…. When was the first time Jesus was begotten from God? Never, says Trinitarians, he was ALWAYS being BORN from God therefore there was never a time he was FIRST BORN from God!!

Yep!! That’s what happens when an untruth is started and attempts are made to maintain it… later than sooner, from its shifting sand pit foundation where people couldn’t read (indeed may even have been tortured or killed for being able to read) and therefore could not see for themselves the fallacies forced on them, the truth emerges.

No! Of course Jesus was not born from God… and ‘Wisdom’ is not pre-existent Jesus. A[nother] pillar of trinitarianism pulled down!!

‘First-born of all creation’…. NO!!! It is ‘FIRSTBORN OVER ALL CREATION’.

Jesus EARNED the supremacy to BECOME the GREATEST, THE MOST BELOVED of the Father:

• ‘You are my Son; In you I am well pleased!!’

If Jesus were already God, how is GOD claiming Jesus as his most beloved??

Trinity claims God is an inseparable three persons, but separates the three into distinguishable individuals with vastly different abilities - while claiming them as CO-EQUAL… that’s a definition that’s hard to validate!!

In fact, God GRANTS Jesus THE POWER to do His (GOD’s) Will, grants Jesus power and authority to rule, grants Jesus the power and authority to raise the dead; grants Jesus the power and authority to RULE OVER CREATION!

But trinity (in one breath) says Jesus is ALREADY GOD with all these powers and authority… while (in another breath) upholds the truth of the scriptures - alternating between these two concepts according to which point they want to make!!

So, OESTE, are you agreeing that Jesus was not born from God before the beginning of time and therefore it was not Jesus who created the world and all things within?

Is it unreasonable in trinitarian ideology to say that Jesus is the first, has the supremacy, in all things?
He is:

• the FIRST BORN OF GOD
• the FIRST COMPLETELY SINLESS MAN
• the FIRST BEGOTTEN OF GOD
• the FIRST RAISED FROM THE DEAD
• the FIRST TAKEN INTO HEAVEN
• the FIRST SEATED NEXT TO GOD
• the FIRST RULER IN PLACE OF GOD
• the FIRST HEIR OF GOD
• the FIRST RULER OVER ALL CREATION

But yet he is GOD from Eternity?
Where is the supremacy in jesus if he is God - God who created all things?

No! Jesus was not created nor born from God before the world - nor did Jesus create the world … Jesus was only pre-eminent in that he was PROPHESIED as being the coming MESSIAH:

• ‘The SEED of a Woman’

That is the pre-eminent prophesy from God. God gave his word that he would send a messiah born of a woman to bring salvation to mankind. And, in the fullness of time, where no other man has been found to fulfil the role, God’s prophesy was made flesh… God put his spirit on a pious woman whose seed (egg) was fertilised by the sinless spirit of God to create a sinless man in the manner of the first sinless man, Adam!

Jesus’ supremacy is not one of ‘existing before the world was’. His supremacy is only ever claimed in his state as a man who overcame the world (that is: sin and temptation):

• “And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Col 1:18)

Col 1:3 & 15 also says that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation:

• “Christ is, seated at the right hand of God”
• “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” (King James version)

 

[Oeste]

I’m not in a position to respond point by point,...

I totally agree with you on this, but it begs the question: Why did you choose a Debate Forum? Posting unsubstantiated claims or opinions are great for Message Boards but they fall short on a Debate Forum.

In a Debate Forum you are expected to defend your position, preferably with logic or an authoritative source. There should be some form of evidence and reasoning (preferably your own) that logically connects the two. If this were simply Biblical Opinions, perhaps you could proselytize against Trinitarians with little regard for your commentary's accuracy. But this is Biblical Debates, so you are not simply preaching a sermon, but at the very least, presenting an evidence based or valid premise from which to launch.

I'm not saying your premise or initial argument MUST be valid, but at least show that you made some attempt to show that it is.

Attacking a group with anything less, IMO, is simply smear without basis.

...but I see you are a dodger while claiming to be a straight talker.

Soapy, it was you, not me, that baited readers with "First Born" and then pulled the old switcheroo with "Begotten". That sounds less like straight talk and more like a dodge to me.

Just in case you are trying to corner me;

No Soapy. I am not here to corner you. Certain premises, arguments or conclusions may be another matter though.

I have written EXTENSIVELY on the difference between ‘FIRSTBORN’ - and ‘FIRST BORN’ (or ‘FIRST-BORN)’. It is TRINITARIANS who cannot distinguish the difference when it comes to their claims.

All I'm saying is that you may want to show that your "Trinitarian claim" is actually "Trinitarian" before you shoot it down. This generally requires more than just your say-so, even if you have written extensively on the subject.

A PRIME EXAMPLE:

No! Of course Jesus was not born from God… and ‘Wisdom’ is not pre-existent Jesus. A[nother] pillar of trinitarianism pulled down!!

The Trinity doctrine does not teach that 'Wisdom' is the pre-existent Jesus. The so-called "pillar of trinitarianism" you boast of pulling down is imaginary. It simply doesn't exist and never has.

It was ARIUS, a devout anti-Trinitarian, who taught and argued (Nicea 325) that Lady Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22-31) was the pre-existent Jesus.

Your arguments are all over the place Soapy. You take anti-Trinitarian concepts and argue as if they were somehow Trinitarian. Get a good book on the Trinity and church history and you WILL be able to argue "point by point". It will add more credibility, trust and reliability to your posts.

I appreciate your zest and zeal, and don't fault you for it at all. But a lot of it is misplaced and, as it is, I agree with you... you are not in a position to respond "point by point" on the Trinity.

 

[Soapy]

I totally agree with you on this, but it begs the question: Why did you choose a Debate Forum? Posting unsubstantiated claims or opinions are great for Message Boards but they fall short on a Debate Forum.

In a Debate Forum you are expected to defend your position, preferably with logic or an authoritative source. There should be some form of evidence and reasoning (preferably your own) that logically connects the two. If this were simply Biblical Opinions, perhaps you could proselytize against Trinitarians with little regard for your commentary's accuracy. But this is Biblical Debates, so you are not simply preaching a sermon, but at the very least, presenting an evidence based or valid premise from which to launch.

I'm not saying your premise or initial argument MUST be valid, but at least show that you made some attempt to show that it is.

Attacking a group with anything less, IMO, is simply smear without basis.



Soapy, it was you, not me, that baited readers with "First Born" and then pulled the old switcheroo with "Begotten". That sounds less like straight talk and more like a dodge to me.




No Soapy. I am not here to corner you. Certain premises, arguments or conclusions may be another matter though.



All I'm saying is that you may want to show that your "Trinitarian claim" is actually "Trinitarian" before you shoot it down. This generally requires more than just your say-so, even if you have written extensively on the subject.

A PRIME EXAMPLE:



The Trinity doctrine does not teach that 'Wisdom' is the pre-existent Jesus. The so-called "pillar of trinitarianism" you boast of pulling down is imaginary. It simply doesn't exist and never has.

It was ARIUS, a devout anti-Trinitarian, who taught and argued (Nicea 325) that Lady Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22-31) was the pre-existent Jesus.

Your arguments are all over the place Soapy. You take anti-Trinitarian concepts and argue as if they were somehow Trinitarian. Get a good book on the Trinity and church history and you WILL be able to argue "point by point". It will add more credibility, trust and reliability to your posts.

I appreciate your zest and zeal, and don't fault you for it at all. But a lot of it is misplaced and, as it is, I agree with you... you are not in a position to respond "point by point" on the Trinity.

When I said I wasn’t in a position to answer every one of your points it was because I was engaged in another task that would take a long time to get through. I posted as implied response to fit in with the time I could spare.

And as for the rest of what you are trying to say: It’s all the same thing and exactly what I said Trinitarians do when they are confronted with the truth against what they say in defence of trinity claims.

You are doing EXACTLY what I said…. You are denying what Trinitarians have said to me… And that’s what I said Trinitarians do…. THEY SAY WHAT THEY SAY TO ME in a debate in order to try to gain a ‘Win’ towards trinity fallacy. Then when I say that to YOU (!?) you deny that there ever was such a claim in trinity!!

Right… Right…. Absolutely right…THE TRINITARIAN WHO MADE THE CLAIM WAS SPEAKING FALSELY…!!

You see that such a claim is false because YOU aren’t trying to make it a claim….

It’s a pattern of behaviour I’ve seen over and over again - It’s a practical practice that has held trinitarianism in vogue for over 2000 years. One makes a false claim if it wins a debate and if it’s discovered just deny that it was ever a claim. Moreover, deny that you ever heard any other trinitarian say it or that any trinitarian would ever say it…

Have you noticed that you are the only one contesting in this thread… You are the only one denying that the claim I made is a false claim!!

I don’t think you really know what you are countering here. Trinity claims that [Jesus] was born as the first of God’s creations —- That’s why THE ONE FIRST PERSON IN TRINITY is ‘THE FATHER’.

‘Father’, MEANS: “He that creates”
‘Son’, means: “He that carries out the works the Father commands him to do”

Do you agree or disagree with those two definitions.

Jesus does!

So, if trinity claims that the Father created the world through the son - which means that the Son is obviously subordinate to the Father - and the son can only do what he first sees the Father do… when did the Father create a world and then the son did likewise?

Trinity says that Jesus was BEGOTTEN OF GOD.
Begotten is the SAME AS ‘Born [from]’.

But you think that ‘Jesus begotten from God’ means something different from ‘Jesus born from God’… How? How? Why?

But the trinitarian claim that this was from the before the worlds… is false! Why? Because THERE WAS NO JESUS BEFORE THE WORLDS!

The messiah was only prophesied… he was in the foreknowledge of God…

But if you think different then explain how it is said that those who would become apostles of of God were FOREKNOWN TO HIM BEFORE THE WORLD WAS?

Are these apostles also ‘GOD’ because they were foreknown (Romans 8:29)

 

[Oeste]

When I said I wasn’t in a position to answer every one of your points it was because I was engaged in another task that would take a long time to get through. I posted as implied response to fit in with the time I could spare.

That was thoughtful Soapy.

Let us know when you've completed your task. I noticed you still haven't cited any sources for any of the dubious points you've raised and we're all looking forward to your doing so.

 

[Soapy]

That was thoughtful Soapy.

Let us know when you've completed your task. I noticed you still haven't cited any sources for any of the dubious points you've raised and we're all looking forward to your doing so.

What do you mean I haven’t cited any sources for any of what you call ‘my dubious points’?

I cited a web source but you ignored it … which is another typical trinitarian trait.

Jesus Christ pointed out many truths to the unbelieving Jews until he got exasperated and said to them:

• ‘No signs will be shown to you - except the sign of Jonah’ (Matt 12:39)

This relates to Jonah being in the belly of the ‘great fish’ for three days and three nights -and Jesus was pointing ahead to his own death in that he, too, will be in a dark place (the grave) for three days and three nights:

• “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matt 12:40)

Here, then, is another trinity fallacy, and one that is counter the very words of Jesus:

• ‘Trinitarians say Jesus DID NOT DIE!’

Are you going to deny that claim, too?

Trinitarians often use the following verse as a claim of Jesus being GOD:

• ‘Jesus is the same today as yesterday, as tomorrow’ (

Now, please tell me you dispute that, too… please!!!

Oh, so Jesus, in Heaven (which he never was until after being resurrected from the dead and taken up to Heaven BY GOD) CHANGED to become a human being, according to trinity. Not only a human but a baby who CHANGED in the nature of a child becoming an adult - he had to LEARN - FROM GOD… and was ANOINTED with the Spirit of God in order to enable him to DO THE WORKS OF GOD.

Then he was killed; crucified; died…He was then resurrected BY GOD and his body was CHANGED to an immortal body… and then he was TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN BY GOD and seated at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD!

Hmm… no change at all, then. Oh, and from a vision of him in Heaven, an apostles has Jesus saying:

• ‘I am he WHO WAS DEAD, but AM NOW ALIVE FOREVERMORE’

Hmmm… no change at all, is there?

But most of all, Jesus is appointed BY GOD (Granted by God) to have the ability to judge the dead and the living and the power to grant everlasting life to whom he deems worthy!!

God, the Father, the creator (by definition) of all things, GRANTS these things and more to him who did not priorly have them….

Do you still say there was no change to Jesus?
———————————————

You are fixated with what you think is a hole in my claim against Trinitarians. You don’t (do not wish to) see the bigger picture because of embarrasses you to know that these above and what I wrote in the O.P., are what your trinitarian colleagues say and believe: IN ONE MOMENT BUT NOT THE NEXT; BY ONE TRINITARIAN PERSON BUT NOT ANOTHER; IN DESPERATION OR IN IGNORANCE.

 

[Oeste]

And as for the rest of what you are trying to say: It’s all the same thing and exactly what I said Trinitarians do when they are confronted with the truth against what they say in defence of trinity claims.

I've seen a lot of Soapy claims but little in the way of Trinitarian claims.

What do you mean I haven’t cited any sources for any of what you call ‘my dubious points’?

I cited a web source but you ignored it … which is another typical trinitarian trait.

I stated the following:

I notieced you still haven't cited any sources for any of the dubious points you've raised and we're all looking forward to your doing so.

This means exactly what it says: you haven't cited any sources for your dubious points. It's a tedious point I've had to raise again and again.

The URL you posted does not authenticate or support any of the dubious claims you've made. Why not just post a link to the Library of Congress, Amazon Books, or Wikipedia, and claim all your support from there?

This thread started off with you making an extremely dubious point:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

I've asked you to cite your source for this statement about 10 times already, and all I or any of the long suffering and patient readers have heard from you is the sound of crickets or the raising of another, equally dubious point. Failure to make or properly cite sources will just make readers believe, however wrongly, that you don't have a point to make and thus spin them forth from "thin air".

Reach out to someone if you're not sure how to quote or cite. As I stated previously, if you can only cite thin air, then just say "thin air", and we can move on to some other point.

While we're waiting on you to do that, I will CITE another dubious post of your own making, which you also failed to CITE a source for:

But Jesus is clearly LESS THAN GOD since GOD has presidency over Jesus, using Jesus (in trinity claims) as secondary agent of creation.

This was interesting...you claim that Jesus, in trinity claims, is a "secondary agent of creation".

Can you tell us where this so-called "trinitarian claim" came from? Can you actually cite a reputable trinitarian source that claims Jesus is a "secondary agent" of creation???

Again, if thin air, simply cite "thin air". Perhaps you had a conversation with people who claimed to be trinitarian and they somehow convinced you they were, in fact, actual trinitarians.

That happens. Identity theft is a world wide phenome, and trinitarians are often targets.

Trinitarians claim that God is divided into three persons:

After claiming for centuries that God is NOT divided, trinitarians make a complete 180 and now claim that God is! Who knew Trinitarians were secretly admitting they were Tritheists ??

Leave it to the media to quash this ground breaking news. This is obviously a recent development, the smoking gun anti-trinitarians have been looking for, and you, Soapy, have found it!

Or have you? We're still waiting for you to quote your source.

No! Of course Jesus was not born from God… and ‘Wisdom’ is not pre-existent Jesus. A[nother] pillar of trinitarianism pulled down!!

So, it was trinitarians who believed Lady Wisdom was the pre-existent Jesus which of course leaves Arius arguing against it! That flips Church history on it's head!!

Did you know we'll have to re-write virtually every book on church history to properly show we got the whole argument at Nicea wrong, and it was the Trinitarians who were arguing Lady Wisdom was Jesus. and it was Arius who argued what we have long considered the Trinitarian position??? What about our Arian friends? Won't they be surprised they've actually been arguing Trinitarianism the whole time, and as you have pointed out, have been absolutely wrong about it too?

I am not sure why you are not on every news channel, cable outlet, and talk show on the planet Soapy.

If Arians have been arguing Trinitarianism, and Trinitarians have been arguing Arianism, we are going to have one confused mess of a Christian Christology. I can just imagine the atheists quietly sitting back, ordering extra popcorn while we sort this mess out.

But, before we get to all that, we'll probably need you to cite not one, but several reliable sources. It doesn't seem much to ask.

I have no doubt regarding the inherent veracity or truthfulness of your comments Soapy, but others may or will. We have a lot of doubters on the forum, and we have to take the good with the bad.

Tell me: Are you just angry that trinity trollop is being exposed?

Wow! After reading ground breaking news like this, who wouldn't think Trinitarians are nothing more than spiritual "prostitutes"! But is that fair to prostitutes? I mean, as trollops, we probable gave prostitutes a bad name, didn't we?

So no, I'm not angry, I am just relieved that YOU have exposed trinitarians like me for what we really are! With trinitarianism properly exposed, I am left to wonder at how long you suffered, sullied by the mere presence of trinitarians and their ideolo... oh wait!

Before I go marching into church this Sunday, I'm really, really, going to need that source. You do have it, don't you?

 

[Soapy]

I've seen a lot of Soapy claims but little in the way of Trinitarian claims.


I stated the following:



This means exactly what it says: you haven't cited any sources for your dubious points. It's a tedious point I've had to raise again and again.

The URL you posted does not authenticate or support any of the dubious claims you've made. Why not just post a link to the Library of Congress, Amazon Books, or Wikipedia, and claim all your support from there?

This thread started off with you making an extremely dubious point:



I've asked you to cite your source for this statement about 10 times already, and all I or any of the long suffering and patient readers have heard from you is the sound of crickets or the raising of another, equally dubious point. Failure to make or properly cite sources will just make readers believe, however wrongly, that you don't have a point to make and thus spin them forth from "thin air".

Reach out to someone if you're not sure how to quote or cite. As I stated previously, if you can only cite thin air, then just say "thin air", and we can move on to some other point.

While we're waiting on you to do that, I will CITE another dubious post of your own making, which you also failed to CITE a source for:



This was interesting...you claim that Jesus, in trinity claims, is a "secondary agent of creation".

Can you tell us where this so-called "trinitarian claim" came from? Can you actually cite a reputable trinitarian source that claims Jesus is a "secondary agent" of creation???

Again, if thin air, simply cite "thin air". Perhaps you had a conversation with people who claimed to be trinitarian and they somehow convinced you they were, in fact, actual trinitarians.

That happens. Identity theft is a world wide phenome, and trinitarians are often targets.



After claiming for centuries that God is NOT divided, trinitarians make a complete 180 and now claim that God is! Who knew Trinitarians were secretly admitting they were Tritheists ??

Leave it to the media to quash this ground breaking news. This is obviously a recent development, the smoking gun anti-trinitarians have been looking for, and you, Soapy, have found it!

Or have you? We're still waiting for you to quote your source.



So, it was trinitarians who believed Lady Wisdom was the pre-existent Jesus which of course leaves Arius arguing against it! That flips Church history on it's head!!

Did you know we'll have to re-write virtually every book on church history to properly show we got the whole argument at Nicea wrong, and it was the Trinitarians who were arguing Lady Wisdom was Jesus. and it was Arius who argued what we have long considered the Trinitarian position??? What about our Arian friends? Won't they be surprised they've actually been arguing Trinitarianism the whole time, and as you have pointed out, have been absolutely wrong about it too?

I am not sure why you are not on every news channel, cable outlet, and talk show on the planet Soapy.

If Arians have been arguing Trinitarianism, and Trinitarians have been arguing Arianism, we are going to have one confused mess of a Christian Christology. I can just imagine the atheists quietly sitting back, ordering extra popcorn while we sort this mess out.

But, before we get to all that, we'll probably need you to cite not one, but several reliable sources. It doesn't seem much to ask.

I have no doubt regarding the inherent veracity or truthfulness of your comments Soapy, but others may or will. We have a lot of doubters on the forum, and we have to take the good with the bad.



Wow! After reading ground breaking news like this, who wouldn't think Trinitarians are nothing more than spiritual "prostitutes"! But is that fair to prostitutes? I mean, as trollops, we probable gave prostitutes a bad name, didn't we?

So no, I'm not angry, I am just relieved that YOU have exposed trinitarians like me for what we really are! With trinitarianism properly exposed, I am left to wonder at how long you suffered, sullied by the mere presence of trinitarians and their ideolo... oh wait!

Before I go marching into church this Sunday, I'm really, really, going to need that source. You do have it, don't you?

Ha ha ha…. Trinitarians are not triethists??? They have been claiming from the beginning that they are - but, on realising it, add that:

• ‘Yet these three are not three but one’

What do you say to that? It’s in the very creed they ‘bend their knee’ to in duty to believe.

And as for: Trinitarians believe that Jesus was created as the first of the works of God… Prove that they do not believe this!

Do Trinitarians not put a rank on equality? Jesus, they say, is EQUAL TO GOD but RANKED SECOND!

Oh…. You are going to say you never heard this RANKING IN GOD, either!!!

Have you talked with any trinitarian about this belief - or are you so afraid of finding out that it’s true that you can’t bring yourself to believe that anyone could believe in such nonsense!!

Or, tell me: Where did ‘Jesus in Heaven from the beginning’ come from?

Here are some tips for your answer:

1. God is the Father, YHWH
2. The Spirit of YHWH was the ‘instrument’ by which YHWH created all things
3. The actual first creations were the Angel Spirits but these are not material matter
4. The word of God in ‘material’ creation is exactly that: YHWH’s word:
   1. “Let there be light!’
5. God’s word is as an act: He speaks and it happens
6. The Spirit in the act is YHWH’s - Hence it is said that YHWH’s utterance created all things
7. Jesus is Son of God but cannot BE GOD, in the same way that a Son of a King is not KING. In fact, it is GOD who GAVE (read as: ‘Allowed’) Jesus to be crucified for the salvation of man.
8. God himself, cannot atone for the sins of man anymore than a school Principal sit in detention for the bad behaviour of his students

Trinitarians say that it is ‘Jesus’ who created all things…. So they are claiming that YHWH uttered ‘Jesus’ out of his mouth to create all things.

Yet, is not the definition of ‘Father’, “HE THAT CREATES”??

Yet ‘Jesus’, the Son in trinity, is not called ‘Father’? Isn’t that strange?

The supposition in trinity, therefore, is that ‘Jesus’ was ‘IN GOD’ as His word and was the utterance that created all things. So Jesus was BORN as the first of YHWH’s acts which was to utter His WORD, which then created all things!

Oh yes, it is nonsense. But that’s what Trinitarians, in a nutshell, claim to believe:

• In the beginning was the word; and the word created all things. God created all things through his word - and that word is Jesus

Utter claptrap!!

The reason for the trinity nonsense is that they cannot create a solution to where ‘Jesus’ came from in the trinity. It’s true that God, from before the beginning, was there - with his spirit, obviously!

There was no Son (‘Jesus’) with God. Belief in multiple deities in Heaven are pure pagan mythology. Trinitarians, highly likely influenced by Hellenistic Jews, could not be convinced that there could be only one deity responsible for the whole of creation so the preached three deities.

But clearly, the doctrine is one God. So they melded the trietheistist view with the monoetheist to created a wonderful messy ideology.

Also, why is Jesus called the only Son of God who is God?

• “Jesus was the only person to be born of a mortal mother, Mary, and an immortal father, God the Father.”

Is this not pagan mythology? Like Heracles, a Demi-God, part human and part Deity. But trinity declares, without reference, that Jesus is FULLY GOD and FULLY HUMAN without confusing the essence. … What??

Is Jesus therefore GREATER than God because he is BOTH, is TWO, but God is only ONE?

Or is Jesus LESS than God because Jesus is weighed down by flesh? Surely the frailties of Jesus are clear to see on him being hungry, tired, lacking in full knowledge of all things, dependent on GOD to help him.

Surely this is a confusing ‘GOD’!! And yet GOD is not a God of confusion!

• I hope you read this part below at least before you attend church on Sunday. You can ask your Pastor / Priest / … about it, too.
• “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all the world.” (Nicene Creed)
• “The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten…. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds;” (Athanasian Creed)

I take it you do know that ‘Begotten’ means ‘Born [from]’? Is that why you try to deny the links I gave you?

I take it you also know that ‘Of the substance of the Father’ is the same as ‘BEGOTTEN / BORN’?

All these are claims of ‘Jesus born from God before the world was’. But you hide yourself behind ‘I am Protestant’ as if that somehow allows for a denial of what is claimed by Trinitarians.

Oh, another thing: Do you realise that neither the Athanasian Creed, the Apostles Creed, nor the Nicene Creed say anything about Jesus DESCENDING FROM Heaven?

They say only what I said elsewhere that Jesus only DESCENDED into the Grave and the ASCENDED into Heaven, just as Jesus spoke a similar truth:

• ‘No MAN has ever ASCENDED [into Heaven] except he that first DESCENDED [into the Grave]; namely, the Son of man who is in Heaven’

 

[Oeste]

@Soapy,

When you re in a position to respond point by point, let us know.

You can start off with your thread's theme:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

It appears you confused:

1. "First-born" with "born", much like you later confused​

2. "Lady Wisdom = Jesus" as a "Trinitarian" rather than "Arian" argument, much like you just confused​

3. "Jesus was a secondary agent of creations" as a "Trinitarian" rather than "Arian" belief, much like you confused​

4. Your false teaching the Trinitarian "God is DIVIDED into 3 persons" with the Trinity doctrine that states God is NOT divided at all, and​

5. Your teaching that Tritheism = Trinitarianism, which simply tells readers you never studied Theology at all, and confusing​

6. Trinitarians with prostitutes...which was not worth the time it took us to read, or you to write, "trollops".​

Look, I don't mind disagreements, that's what Debate forums are for. However, in a Debate forum, assertions you put forth are expected to have a legitimate or logical basis. Instead, all we get is another wall of unsubstantiated text that goes "poof" when held to light.... and then you're on, undeterred and unphased, to another baseless argument.

I've been busy, but if you ever get the notion to join the forum in legitimate discourse, just let me and/or forum readers know.

 

[Soapy]

View attachment 78944
@Soapy,

When you re in a position to respond point by point, let us know.

You can start off with your thread's theme:



It appears you confused:

1. "First-born" with "born", much like you later confused​

2. "Lady Wisdom = Jesus" as a "Trinitarian" rather than "Arian" argument, much like you just confused​

3. "Jesus was a secondary agent of creations" as a "Trinitarian" rather than "Arian" belief, much like you confused​

4. Your false teaching the Trinitarian "God is DIVIDED into 3 persons" with the Trinity doctrine that states God is NOT divided at all, and​

5. Your teaching that Tritheism = Trinitarianism, which simply tells readers you never studied Theology at all, and confusing​

6. Trinitarians with prostitutes...which was not worth the time it took us to read, or you to write, "trollops".​

Look, I don't mind disagreements, that's what Debate forums are for. However, in a Debate forum, assertions you put forth are expected to have a legitimate or logical basis. Instead, all we get is another wall of unsubstantiated text that goes "poof" when held to light.... and then you're on, undeterred and unphased, to another baseless argument.

I've been busy, but if you ever get the notion to join the forum in legitimate discourse, just let me and/or forum readers know.

I sense fear in you… Your reference to Arian beliefs have no place here and the fact you brought them up shows you are lost in the wilderness.

There is something I’m detecting post by post from you - You don’t know the scriptures… You don’t know what scriptures says and what Trinitarians say that do not mesh with scriptures. The result is that you deny the claims I’m making as in the trinitarian way: you ‘Never heard it’ and you ‘don’t believe Trinitarians say it’…

I know you as one who cannot stand to lose. As such I forgive your desperation to ignore the information I gave you.

‘First-Born’… I wrote a whole thesis on this. It’s TRINITARIANS who do not seem to understand the difference between firstborn and first-born.
And the fact that you are accusing me of not understanding just goes to show that you don’t understand what this thread is about.

You aren’t even responding to the info I passed to you - you just keep saying I haven’t responded to you… and that I don’t know what I’m talking about… says nothing about what you believe - which tends to be the tactic of those who fear exposing their own ideology to be ridiculed.

What Trinitarians SAY is often different from what their creeds, preachings, and ideologies proclaim. That is why you cannot understand what I’m saying to you… or are afraid to believe what I’m saying to you.

Afterall, what better way to stop the truth about a lie being exposed than to try to claim that the truth is nog true::: Greiving the Spirit of Truth!

 

[Oeste]

I sense fear in you…

That's because you are very perceptive Soapy.

Your reference to Arian beliefs have no place here and the fact you brought them up shows you are lost in the wilderness.

There is something I’m detecting post by post from you - You don’t know the scriptures… You don’t know what scriptures says and what Trinitarians say that do not mesh with scriptures. The result is that you deny the claims I’m making as in the trinitarian way: you ‘Never heard it’ and you ‘don’t believe Trinitarians say it’…

I know you as one who cannot stand to lose. As such I forgive your desperation to ignore the information I gave you.

‘First-Born’… I wrote a whole thesis on this. It’s TRINITARIANS who do not seem to understand the difference between firstborn and first-born.
And the fact that you are accusing me of not understanding just goes to show that you don’t understand what this thread is about.

You aren’t even responding to the info I passed to you - you just keep saying I haven’t responded to you… and that I don’t know what I’m talking about… says nothing about what you believe - which tends to be the tactic of those who fear exposing their own ideology to be ridiculed.

What Trinitarians SAY is often different from what their creeds, preachings, and ideologies proclaim. That is why you cannot understand what I’m saying to you… or are afraid to believe what I’m saying to you.

Afterall, what better way to stop the truth about a lie being exposed than to try to claim that the truth is nog true::: Greiving the Spirit of Truth!

Well this is exactly what I feared... that you would be no more responsive this time than last.

Take care Soapy, and when you can source and verify these so-called "Trinitarian beliefs" of yours, let us know.

 

[Soapy]

That's because you are very perceptive Soapy.



Well this is exactly what I feared... that you would be no more responsive this time than last.

Take care Soapy, and when you can source and verify these so-called "Trinitarian beliefs" of yours, let us know.

Thank goodness you finally see sense and realise that opposing truth gets you nowhere.

Ignoring the evidence I submitted to you does not diminish the validity of the evidence.

The trinitarian creeds declare that ‘Jesus’ was BEGOTTEN OF GOD before the ages.

All Trinitarians are required to subscribe to the trinity creed(s) and must therefore believe what the creed(s) state.

It is your conjecture that Trinitarians do not believe that ‘Jesus’ was ‘BEGOTTEN FROM GOD’ before the ages… therefore you are saying that Trinitarians do one or both of the following:

1. Do not subscribe to the trinity creed(s)
2. Ignore what the trinity creed(s) say when it’s convenient for them to do so

A study of the issue of the belief in ‘Eternally Begotten’ says in one place:

• “The church fathers also quoted Proverbs 8:25 frequently in the Old Greek, which has the figure of Wisdom saying, “Before the mountains were created, before all the hills, he begets me”[…]. The church fathers believed the figure of Wisdom in this passage was the pre-incarnate Christ. This was based on two considerations: (1) the New Testament refers to Jesus as God’s Wisdom (Matt. 11:19; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 2:3); and (2) Wisdom is pictured in Proverbs 8:22–31 as being present with God as His “master workman” at the beginning, which fits with the New Testament teaching that the Word was with God “in the beginning” (John 1:1–2) as the intermediary of creation (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2)”

And also this (From Quora):

• Jesus though did originate from heaven, and knew the difference. He had been a spirit being, and had supported his Father’s creative works.
  • (Proverbs 8:23-31) 23 From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. 25 Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, 28 When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, 29 When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men.

This latter quote, from the prophet Solomon, does not claim that Jesus created anything but was a ‘worker’ next to God. A claim that ‘Jesus created all things’ cannot be substantiated by this. And, is another nail in the coffin of the claims of Trinitarians.

Here is clear evidence of what you are denying.

And I can understand that you are horrified and embarrassed that such a claim should be made and such evidence is available to show that it is the belief that is presented in the creed(s)… DENIAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE!!!

It is good that YOU do not believe the fallacy - if only other trinitarians could see the truth, also.

 

[Oeste]

Thank goodness you finally see sense and realise that opposing truth gets you nowhere.

I couldn't agree with you more! It's why I abandoned Arianism and came dragging and kicking to the Trinity.

It is your conjecture that Trinitarians do not believe that ‘Jesus’ was ‘BEGOTTEN FROM GOD’ before the ages…

I don't recall making this "conjecture" at all, most likely because I never made it.

This is just more nonsense you've conjured up Soapy. You lose what little credibility you have when you make things up. Now please, quote me on this. Cite the post or give us the link. When and where did I say this about Trinitarians?

Feel free to quote me, but I draw a line at putting words in my mouth.

A study of the issue of the belief in ‘Eternally Begotten’ says in one place:

Wow! And where oh where did this "study" take place? When was it written and by whom? Why do you constantly fail to accurately cite sources Soapy??

And also this (From Quora):

Seriously? You're referencing some ambiguous post on Quora? And you give no specific link?

Here, let me help you out. I'll cite my own reference:

And also this (From Quora the Internet)​

Both references are equally useful and make about as much sense.

• Jesus though did originate from heaven, and knew the difference. He had been a spirit being, and had supported his Father’s creative works.

What "difference"?

And what do you mean by "He had been a spirit being"? Do you mean God, or are you claiming Jesus was an angel or cherub beforehand?

And what do you mean by "supported"? Is this where the Father waves Jesus around like a wand, creating the universe "through" Jesus?

And don't you deny the Holy Spirit as a person but promote Him as some sort of "active force"? Where is this active force when the Father is doing His creating? I don't see any mention of "active force" here.

Also, why is the Father waving Jesus around when He should be using or waving His "active force"?

• • (Proverbs 8:23-31) 23 From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. 25 Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, 28 When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, 29 When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men.

OOOOKKKKKAAAYYY....

So you believe the Father created Jesus as a woman!

But Jesus never refers to himself as a woman, so when did Lady Wisdom transition herself into a man?

Also, verse 30 says she "was beside him as a master worker" How was she beside God when God was all alone, by Himself, during creation?

Also, considering that Jesus was a woman at this time, does verse 31 "I was especially fond of the sons of men" have any special connotations we should be aware of? Perhaps that is why Jesus transitioned?

Did you even bother to read the initial verses to Proverbs 8, or did you just read this person's post, liked what it said, and decided to swallow it down whole?

his latter quote, from the prophet Solomon, does not claim that Jesus created anything but was a ‘worker’ next to God.

This worker was next to God, when God was all alone when He created?

I don't think so Soapy. Let forget this story you've been told. Let's see what scripture says instead:

“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself​

It was NOT a woman named Wisdom that God waved around, creating the heavens "through" her before she transitioned into a man. The whole idea of Lady Wisdom as a created Jesus makes absolutely no sense.

I requested you to get a book on the Trinity and Church History. You may want to get a few LEGITIMATE study aids, which will explain what the historic church believes and WHY we believe it. You'll notice we're not big into "proof texts" but a lot heavier into rationale.

A claim that ‘Jesus created all things’ cannot be substantiated by this. And, is another nail in the coffin of the claims of Trinitarians.

Lol, you are right in a way. This verse does NOT substantiate that Jesus created all things because these verses are not about Jesus. They are about Lady Wisdom:

Proverbs 8:

Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 At the highest point along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 beside the gate leading into the city,
at the entrance, she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O people, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.
5 You who are simple, gain prudence;

So no nail in your fictional trinity coffin. Trinity doctrine is shared by the vast majority of Christians. Any claim that the Trinity is dead, or in a coffin, is simply false, against fact, and against scripture. It may feel good or sound pleasant to you to make such claims, but to others, those with wisdom, it simply gives the impression you may have lost touch with reality.

This latter quote, from the prophet Solomon, does not claim that Jesus created anything but was a ‘worker’ next to God.

(Sigh)...

We've been through this before Soapy. We keep going through it again and again because you jump from "proof text" to "proof text" and never answer questions. That is why you so quickly abandoned the thread theme you started and never discussed it. You were anxious to jump to something else, only to find the something else, Psalm 8, is even worse for you than your initial plan to discuss "First-Born". It' why you are unable to cite any legitimate source for your so-called "Trinity beliefs". It's why you make stuff up, creating strawmen that are much easier to knock down than any legitimate or persuasive argument against the Trinity.

One more problem Soapy:

If you recall, the first woman wasn't created until late in creation, when Adam was put to sleep in the garden. I know these folk can make arguments that appear persuasive, but the idea that Jesus could be a woman named Wisdom at the beginning of creation has no textual warrant, withstands no scrutiny, and should laugh itself right out of your head the next time you hear it.

Proverbs 8 is an excellent example of an encomium and should never have been used as a "proof text" to demonstrate a created Jesus.

 

[Soapy]

I couldn't agree with you more! It's why I abandoned Arianism and came dragging and kicking to the Trinity.



I don't recall making this "conjecture" at all, most likely because I never made it.

This is just more nonsense you've conjured up Soapy. You lose what little credibility you have when you make things up. Now please, quote me on this. Cite the post or give us the link. When and where did I say this about Trinitarians?

Feel free to quote me, but I draw a line at putting words in my mouth.



Wow! And where oh where did this "study" take place? When was it written and by whom? Why do you constantly fail to accurately cite sources Soapy??



Seriously? You're referencing some ambiguous post on Quora? And you give no specific link?

Here, let me help you out. I'll cite my own reference:

And also this (From Quora the Internet)​

Both references are equally useful and make about as much sense.


What "difference"?

And what do you mean by "He had been a spirit being"? Do you mean God, or are you claiming Jesus was an angel or cherub beforehand?

And what do you mean by "supported"? Is this where the Father waves Jesus around like a wand, creating the universe "through" Jesus?

And don't you deny the Holy Spirit as a person but promote Him as some sort of "active force"? Where is this active force when the Father is doing His creating? I don't see any mention of "active force" here.

Also, why is the Father waving Jesus around when He should be using or waving His "active force"?




OOOOKKKKKAAAYYY....

So you believe the Father created Jesus as a woman!

But Jesus never refers to himself as a woman, so when did Lady Wisdom transition herself into a man?

Also, verse 30 says she "was beside him as a master worker" How was she beside God when God was all alone, by Himself, during creation?

Also, considering that Jesus was a woman at this time, does verse 31 "I was especially fond of the sons of men" have any special connotations we should be aware of? Perhaps that is why Jesus transitioned?

Did you even bother to read the initial verses to Proverbs 8, or did you just read this person's post, liked what it said, and decided to swallow it down whole?



This worker was next to God, when God was all alone when He created?

I don't think so Soapy. Let forget this story you've been told. Let's see what scripture says instead:

“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself​

It was NOT a woman named Wisdom that God waved around, creating the heavens "through" her before she transitioned into a man. The whole idea of Lady Wisdom as a created Jesus makes absolutely no sense.

I requested you to get a book on the Trinity and Church History. You may want to get a few LEGITIMATE study aids, which will explain what the historic church believes and WHY we believe it. You'll notice we're not big into "proof texts" but a lot heavier into rationale.


Lol, you are right in a way. This verse does NOT substantiate that Jesus created all things because these verses are not about Jesus. They are about Lady Wisdom:

Proverbs 8:

Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 At the highest point along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 beside the gate leading into the city,
at the entrance, she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O people, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.
5 You who are simple, gain prudence;

So no nail in your fictional trinity coffin. Trinity doctrine is shared by the vast majority of Christians. Any claim that the Trinity is dead, or in a coffin, is simply false, against fact, and against scripture. It may feel good or sound pleasant to you to make such claims, but to others, those with wisdom, it simply gives the impression you may have lost touch with reality.



(Sigh)...

We've been through this before Soapy. We keep going through it again and again because you jump from "proof text" to "proof text" and never answer questions. That is why you so quickly abandoned the thread theme you started and never discussed it. You were anxious to jump to something else, only to find the something else, Psalm 8, is even worse for you than your initial plan to discuss "First-Born". It' why you are unable to cite any legitimate source for your so-called "Trinity beliefs". It's why you make stuff up, creating strawmen that are much easier to knock down than any legitimate or persuasive argument against the Trinity.

One more problem Soapy:

If you recall, the first woman wasn't created until late in creation, when Adam was put to sleep in the garden. I know these folk can make arguments that appear persuasive, but the idea that Jesus could be a woman named Wisdom at the beginning of creation has no textual warrant, withstands no scrutiny, and should laugh itself right out of your head the next time you hear it.

Proverbs 8 is an excellent example of an encomium and should never have been used as a "proof text" to demonstrate a created Jesus.

This is all wonderful… that’s why I love (to hate) debating with Trinitarians: You are doing d a toy what I discovered Trinitarians to do when put under examination regarding the trinitarian ideology.

You turned from Arianism to Trinitarianism because you couldn’t believe Arianism!!!

What you don’t understand is that NEITHER ARIANISM NOR TRINITARIANISM is truth… Therefore swapping from one wrongful belief to another wrongful belief is exactly what Satan drives ‘unwary logical’ persons to do. You feel that there are only two beliefs and so if one is wrong then the other MUST BE TRUE…

But what if BOTH ARE WRONG? No, you didn’t consider that, did you!?

And you appear to purposely misread the quotes I posted to you. You EXACTLY DENY the claims in the quotes - which is exactly what I told you was the problem. Then you claim that it was I that was trying to substantiate wrongness:
I did not make a claim that Wisdom (an engendered feminine attribute of God) created anything - I used the verse to claim against wisdom being Jesus - which you now agree with… wow!

And you didn’t realise you were doing it??

That’s exactly how to catch out a trinitarian.

You effectively are agreeing with me that ‘Jesus’ did not exist, except in the mindset of God, before being born as the messiah after the virgin was overshadowed by the Spirit of God… the Spirit of God which is the Power, the activating force, the spiritual enabler, of God.

‘The Father’ is ‘The Creator’ of all things from the non-physical realm of Heaven. His Spirit is the activator that brought His thoughts into being: God speaks and his Spirit activates:

• ‘Let there be light’ - and it was so!!

You rightly say that God was alone before the creation of the angels and humanity. But trinity says that their ‘God’ is THREE PERSONS.

So these THREE PERSONS were not by themselves, ALONE, were they? It is not possible to say “I CREATED ALL THINGS BY MYSELF… I ALONE CREATED ALL THINGS” and yet there are THREE OF YOU …

Trinity falls back when questioned to: ‘All three created’… but doesn’t answer to why there is a heirarchy, a RANK order, to CO-EQUAL persons, one of whom is expressly entitled ‘The creator’ (‘The Father’).

So, ‘The Son’… the Son is not addressed as ‘the Creator’, even though trinity claims him as CO-EQUAL to the Father. Indeed, the son declares himself as being UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT HE FIRST SEES THE FATHER DOING!

How then is the Son the creator of all things if he first sees the Father creating all things? Above all, the Son never claims to have created anything at anytime.

So, since there is no ‘Son in creation’, trinity has to find a purpose to him so-claimed ‘being there’. Searching the scriptures gave way to the verse in Proverbs where ‘Wisdom’ is said to be begotten of God and was a worker (a master builder) by His side. THERE IT IS… says trinity… we can use that and claim that wisdom, though personified and feminine engendered, is ‘Jesus’ pre-existent.

But the verse ALSO SAYS that this ‘Jesus’ was ‘BEGOTTEN BEFORE THE AGES’…. Which point to a pre-existence BEFORE the creation of the world… See it being tied together by weak strands?

But now there is a problem: If ‘Jesus’ was ‘BEGOTTEN’ by THE CREATOR before the creation, how can we say that he is ETERNAL…??

Some clever person of trinity came up with a seemingly grand solution:

• The Son was ETERNALLY BEING BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER….

And thus, ‘Jesus’ is the First creation of God, created before ages; before the world was.

Yes!!!!! And so it was written into the trinitarian creeds so anyone claiming trinitarianism as an ideology MUST BELIEVE THIS.