The Trinity

[Bob Dixon]

I do care and take it very seriously. God is very much working the Trinity concept as He procalimed it and takes umbrage at the false concept of Three Persons. Most likely by the time that the Qu'ran was given c 666, the only official position was the erroneous three person trinity so that when He says don't say Tirinty that is what He is referring to.

I am not much for heirarchy. A large number of people believe in the Three Person Trinity and it even has become official in some churches but that doesn't make it true. I go with the truth that God gives me even if thousands and high potentates disagree.

So, in these two paragraphs, you're making an incorrect historical claim (coupled with, perhaps, an insinuation that Islam is Satanic) AND a claim to prophecy? Dude, I know this is ad hominem, but you're not helping your case at all.

 

[Shermana]

So, in these two paragraphs, you're making an incorrect historical claim (coupled with, perhaps, an insinuation that Islam is Satanic) AND a claim to prophecy? Dude, I know this is ad hominem, but you're not helping your case at all.

Muffled has fully admitted he believes he's a prophet on this forum as a defense for his position (when confronted with opposing logic) before on this subject and that we should take his word at face value because of this.

I don't doubt for a second that he's hearing some kind of voice though.

I'd like to know if the voice told him that 666 was the year Muhammad received the Quran as opposed to what the textbooks say which was around 632. Perhaps he can explain why the textbooks got it wrong by 3 decades and perhaps if he knows exactly what year Jesus was even born or crucified, the whole A.D. thing is off by a few years to begin with.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Muffled has fully admitted he believes he's a prophet on this forum as a defense for his position (when confronted with opposing logic) before on this subject and that we should take his word at face value because of this.

I don't doubt for a second that he's hearing some kind of voice though.

I'd like to know if the voice told him that 666 was the year Muhammad received the Quran as opposed to what the textbooks say which was around 632. Perhaps he can explain why the textbooks got it wrong by 3 decades and perhaps if he knows exactly what year Jesus was even born or crucified, the whole A.D. thing is off by a few years to begin with.

I thought he was merely a fundamentalist, but wow. That's a really serious claim. I wonder if he can prove it by showing us the "good fruits" of his prophethood, but I'll end it right here because that's not what this thread is about.
This also basically means that we can't argue with him because he'll resort to "God told me it's true, so it's true!", even though REAL PROPHETIC FIGURES (such as, oh I don't know, JESUS) engaged in real dialogue and used proper argumentation to convince people.

 

[Oryonder]

I thought he was merely a fundamentalist, but wow. That's a really serious claim. I wonder if he can prove it by showing us the "good fruits" of his prophethood, but I'll end it right here because that's not what this thread is about.
This also basically means that we can't argue with him because he'll resort to "God told me it's true, so it's true!", even though REAL PROPHETIC FIGURES (such as, oh I don't know, JESUS) engaged in real dialogue and used proper argumentation to convince people.

I have encountered a number of people who claim to be able to converse with God. .. that God speaks to them .. answeres questions and so forth.

In each case I say "Great finally someone who can get answers to vexing questions from God" .. what a blessing this is... I have a few questions for you to ask God for me

Unfortunately, none of these people have ever been able to get answers from God and Muff is no different.

 

[icebuddy]

David was called "lord" too, so was David being called the LORD of the Old Testament?

David was called alot of things that mimiced Jesus. However, ask your self a question. What are you saying when you call Jesus your Lord? Are you merely calling him a lord like David or however you see that? Or are you Calling Jesus Lord of the old Testament?

Jesus is Lord Jehovah! Thats what I see as seen by Isaiah in Is 6:5 and explained by Gods word at John 12:39-41 for Isaiah saw Gods image (Jesus is the Image of the invisable God) and prophesied about him.

In Isaiah 42:8 we read God will not give his glory to another or praise to an idol, yet we read at Hebrws 1:2 that Jesus is the radiance or brightness of Gods glory and is exactly like God in every way. And we see at revelation that Jesus is worshipped (Rev 5:8) and we also see Jesus being lifted up as the LORD of the OT at Romans 10:9-13.

So when you say "JESUS IS LORD" what are you really saying? What is your inner submission? What do you think in your understanding? (Now that you know mine)

 

[Shermana]

David was called alot of things that mimiced Jesus. However, ask your self a question. What are you saying when you call Jesus your Lord? Are you merely calling him a lord like David or however you see that? Or are you Calling Jesus Lord of the old Testament?

I am calling Jesus "lord" like I'd call David "lord" except as a heavenly entity, the highest of the angels who nonetheless has Earthly authority just like a king.

Jesus is Lord Jehovah! Thats what I see as seen by Isaiah in Is 6:5 and explained by Gods word at John 12:39-41 for Isaiah saw Gods image (Jesus is the Image of the invisable God) and prophesied about him.

The Father is indeed called "The King". So is David. So is Saul. The Father however is the King of the Heavens. Jesus is the King of the kings on Earth. In Sirach, the Father is called "king of king of kings", what does THAT mean? Who is the king of kings that the Father would be king of to these ancient Israelites?

In Isaiah 42:8 we read God will not give his glory to another or praise to an idol, yet we read at Hebrws 1:2 that Jesus is the radiance or brightness of Gods glory and is exactly like God in every way

You sure you got the right verse? The world was made THROUGH the son. This is in line with Philo's Logos Theology. The Son was the Chief builder and Foreman, the Father was the Overseer and Construction CEO.

. And we see at revelation that Jesus is worshipped (Rev 5:8) and we also see Jesus being lifted up as the LORD of the OT at Romans 10:9-13.

David is worshiped too. We've been over this. If I have to repeat the meaning of the word "worship" again here I will. Romans 10:9-13 does not say that he's the Lord of the OT, this is a common confusion issue on use of the word "Lord". Jesus is indeed "Lord", just like how David was "Lord".

So when you say "JESUS IS LORD" what are you really saying? What is your inner submission? What do you think in your understanding? (Now that you know mine)

My submission is to him as the King of the kings on Earth, the highest of the Angels, the greatest authority that the Father Himself has personally vested with rulership over Creation, the "Arche" of Creation. The appointed ruler. The Holy son is not the Holy Father.

 

[F0uad]

I do care and take it very seriously. God is very much working the Trinity concept as He procalimed it and takes umbrage at the false concept of Three Persons. Most likely by the time that the Qu'ran was given c 666, the only official position was the erroneous three person trinity so that when He says don't say Tirinty that is what He is referring to.

C 666? Lol where did you got that number.. let me guess a Christian evangelic site that calls everyone heretics, heathens and the devil.

Of course it makes sense; even a three year old can count to three.

Even a three year old knows that three isn't one.

This is not the case. The Trinity is part of God's testament.

I am pretty sure there are many Christians who would argue with you, and where did Jesus(p) mention a trinity or where is it anywhere in the scripture?

Because God's word is more important to me than myth or history.

If its God's word then surely he would describe the events right and doesn't make errors in history further more he would protect hes word from corruption if its meant to be the last testimony.

I am not much for heirarchy. A large number of people believe in the Three Person Trinity and it even has become official in some churches but that doesn't make it true. I go with the truth that God gives me even if thousands and high potentates disagree.

Yup even if Jesus(p) would disagree you would still follow it i get it now..

 

[icebuddy]

I am calling Jesus "lord" like I'd call David "lord" except as a heavenly entity, the highest of the angels who nonetheless has Earthly authority just like a king.

If you read Rom 10:9 with Rom 10:13 you will see Jesus being lifted up as calling upon the LORD (YHWH) Jehovah(Joel 2:32). If You keep reading thru verse 14-15 you will see that how can one know if they dont hear and that the dispiples preached about this calling upon the LORD (YHWH at Joel 2:32) Jesus. Text shows the desiples preached Jesus as the Lord which is equalled to calling upon YHWH Jehovah. Seen by their beautiful feet at Acts 16:30-31/ Acts 4:10-12/ Acts 5:42 that Jesus was the one they preached about. (1 cor 10:1-5)

Not to forget verses like Jer 23:6 that directly call Jesus YHWH Jehovah and paired with verses like Is 44:6-8 and Is 44:24-25

The Father is indeed called "The King". So is David. So is Saul. The Father however is the King of the Heavens. Jesus is the King of the kings on Earth. In Sirach, the Father is called "king of king of kings", what does THAT mean? Who is the king of kings that the Father would be king of to these ancient Israelites?

Dont forget that what ever the Father is, Jesus is expressing it in an Image to us 100%. (Heb 1:3) So that is why we see Jesus also being King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 17:14/ Rev 19:16) Jesus is revealed as King of kings and Lord of Lords too.

You sure you got the right verse? The world was made THROUGH the son. This is in line with Philo's Logos Theology. The Son was the Chief builder and Foreman, the Father was the Overseer and Construction CEO.

The easy answer is that Jesus is also YHWH Jehovah God. (Jer 23:6)
How do you answer Isaiah 44:24 that says Jehovah was alone and no one helped him create? The easy answer to me is that Jesus is also Jehovah God with the Father...

David is worshiped too. We've been over this. If I have to repeat the meaning of the word "worship" again here I will.

I believe in another post you said you didnt agree with the strongs on what exactly worship was. I was waiting for your refference on that post. Ill look to see if answered...

Romans 10:9-13 does not say that he's the Lord of the OT, this is a common confusion issue on use of the word "Lord". Jesus is indeed "Lord", just like how David was "Lord".

Romans 10:13 is a direct quote of Joel 2:32 where Jesus is said to be the one we are calling upon as the LORD(joel 2:32). This should not be so confusing for Jer. 23:6 calls Jesus, Jehovah our Righteousness. Hence, Jesus is Jehovah LORD as seen in Joel 2:32...

My submission is to him as the King of the kings on Earth, the highest of the Angels,

Do you believe jesus is a created angel and why?

 

[icebuddy]

I am pretty sure there are many Christians who would argue with you, and where did Jesus(p) mention a trinity or where is it anywhere in the scripture?

The answer to the question is simple. What was seen in a dark room can now be seen with the light of the New testament. See Gen 18:1-2 for example... god expressing himself in 3.

Just as we are somehow made in the image of God, we are made of many parts, yet remain 1 body. 1 Cor 12:12-26 ( 1 unit with many parts) Why then must we limit God to our limited minds of 1 unit with no parts? What we believe is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all part of the Body of God. Just as we believe we are Body, Soul, Spirit we believe God is expressing that to us in Father(unseen or invisable), Son (seen/Body) and Holy Spirit (that which conects us).

Can we say as christians to The Father or The Son or The Holy Spirit that we do not need you?(1John 2:23) Or can we say to the Father that we only worship your head and not the rest of your body? (John 5:23)

To say we know what God is 100%, is not something scriptures teaches (1 Cor 13:12)

I leave you with 1 John 1:1-5

 

[allright]

Deuteronomy 6:4 actually should read "The lord our Gods are one Lord"

The one refers to unity. The Hebrew word for God is plural. "One" Is used the same in Genesis 2:24

A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh

The one refers to unity not one person.

And of course there is Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image"

 

[F0uad]

The answer to the question is simple. What was seen in a dark room can now be seen with the light of the New testament. See Gen 18:1-2 for example... god expressing himself in 3.

No he doesn't what kind of translation are you reading

Just as we are somehow made in the image of God, we are made of many parts, yet remain 1 body. 1 Cor 12:12-26 ( 1 unit with many parts) Why then must we limit God to our limited minds of 1 unit with no parts? What we believe is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all part of the Body of God. Just as we believe we are Body, Soul, Spirit we believe God is expressing that to us in Father(unseen or invisable), Son (seen/Body) and Holy Spirit (that which conects us).

First of all a personality cannot be equalled to a materialism or a part of a body since a Personality is always different from a other personality and its a mind/soul a being.

So when we say Three persons we are contradicting since a Person means someone with a Personality and if all three have different personalities then they are different gods simple as that.

Can we say as christians to The Father or The Son or The Holy Spirit that we do not need you?(1John 2:23) Or can we say to the Father that we only worship your head and not the rest of your body? (John 5:23)

A body is not a person a body is just a part of something. If you say for example that the body has three parts and all the three parts have a mind (single mind) then they are still different in mind, because they don't share the same mind..

To say we know what God is 100%, is not something scriptures teaches (1 Cor 13:12)

So? A concept of god is something different then comprehending god Jesus(p) never believed in a trinity nor the Jewish, you cannot say that God changed hes concept after Jesus(p).

I leave you with 1 John 1:1-5

typical

 

[sojourner]

Even a three year old knows that three isn't one.

Paul said that we, who are many, are one in Christ. Paul certainly wasn't a 3 year old.

 

[F0uad]

Paul said that we, who are many, are one in Christ. Paul certainly wasn't a 3 year old.

In your opinion Paul was talking to a certain group so it doesn't matter what he said according to you.

So your a sausage with Christ?
Claiming to be Christ is claiming to be the Anti-Christ

 

[sojourner]

a Personality is always different from a other personality and its a mind/soul a being.

Is it? Paul said that that we were to have the same mind in us that was also in Christ. And the Celts advocated the anam cara, or "soul friend" from ancient times.

So when we say Three persons we are contradicting since a Person means someone with a Personality and if all three have different personalities then they are different gods simple as that.

And yet a single community, by definition, is comprised of many definable "personalities," yet it is a single, organic whole.

A body is not a person a body is just a part of something.

Oh?

 

[sojourner]

In your opinion Paul was talking to a certain group so it doesn't matter what he said according to you.

Ha! That's not what I either said or meant, and you know it. Paul's ideas do matter, and I said so. This is a weak attempt at an argument, at best.

So your a sausage with Christ?
Claiming to be Christ is claiming to be the Anti-Christ

No, it isn't. Your theological underpinning is abysmal.

 

[F0uad]

Ha! That's not what I either said or meant, and you know it. Paul's ideas do matter, and I said so. This is a weak attempt at an argument, at best.

No, it isn't. Your theological underpinning is abysmal.

:thud:Ill just ignore you since each time i say something you always have to disagree and make illogical responses i leave it at this.

 

[Shermana]

It's interesting how the definition of "person" becomes such a problem when the Trinitarian is asked to define this critical-to-their-doctrine term.

 

[Rocky S]

It's interesting how the definition of "person" becomes such a problem when the Trinitarian is asked to define this critical-to-their-doctrine term.

How so? elaborate please..

 

[Shermana]

How so? elaborate please..

What's there to elaborate? Why don't you provide the definition of "person" in the idea of the "3 persons in one being". How can one being be 3 different persons and have 3 different minds and wills and still be one being? Do they have 3 heads like Cerebrus? I can imagine a two-headed person being two persons in one being perhaps but its still debatable if they're not two "two beings in one body".

 

[sojourner]

How so? elaborate please..

opcorn: