Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

Readers, I thought that some historically minded readers might find it hard to look up the examples regarding the purpose of God in sending spirits to earth alluded to in post #1260, so I thought I would include them below.

My first example came from, the Hellenistic synagogal prayer that describes “… the goal of the creative work [was] – the rational living creature, the world citizen… you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness..." (#3, c.f. aposCon 7.34.1-8)


The second example comes from one of the earliest Christian hymns. Even today, we still sing doctrines in verse: "mild he lays his glory by... Born that man no more may die" (from Hark the Herald Angel Sings). In a similar manner one can study ancient Christian doctrine by reading their hymns. One of the earliest (if not the earliest) Christian Hymns is "The Pearl". In "The Pearl" the early Christians sang doctrinal scenarios, describing processes implied by YoursTrue's quote in post #1259.

In the symbolism of a spirit leaving a heavenly home where it’s been nurtured and comes to earth to gain knowledge and testing, the Hymn tells of a youth, nurtured well by his parents and who is given the task of having his glorious robes removed and being sent to a far and mysterious country where he is to obtain a pearl under difficult circumstances. While away, despite warnings, he slumbers and forgets who he is and his glorious past and even, for a time, his purpose of coming to this strange land.

At some point, he is given help and as he reads a letter from his home, he remembers what it is that he is to accomplish here. He remembers his glorious past, his purpose and accomplishes it. Upon his return, his prior glorious robes are placed upon him, and family and friends now bestow accolades upon him, of which he is only then deserving.


My third example comes from Jewish Zohar, which, similarly, explains this process of learning these same moral and social principles in the following way. First, the question is asked regarding why spirits of mankind are sent to the earth if they are simply going to return back at to God at some future time. The text then says : “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day. “

Like the kings son in the above simile, we are all to "learn the ways of the kings palace" so as to return in a morally and socially improved and educated state in order to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy with one another.


Clear
φυειτζδρακω

 

[paarsurrey]

Interesting point, paarsurrey, because Mary also had genes that were inherited from Adam and Eve.

Yet that makes him Jesus s/o Mary a woman, not s/o God. Right?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet that makes him Jesus s/o Mary a woman, not s/o God. Right?

Regards

Not sure what you mean here. Please explain, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @YoursTrue

I very much agree with you that the purpose of Gods great, cosmic plan is to teach individuals principles that will prepare them to be able to live together in a social heaven in joy and unity forever.

This principle is confirmed in much of the early literature such as the synagogal prayers (e.g. #3, aposCon 7.34.1-8), and early hymns (e.g. “the pearl”) and Jewish literature (e.g. Zohar).


I think this specific observation of yours is profound and insightful.


Clear
φυτζνεσιτζω

Thank you for your thought, but I must say that the earth was made suitable for mankind with a purpose. Now of course, we have the Ten Commandments that outline what God wants for His people. And of course, we know that there is no person on earth that can keep those commandments perfectly, although we may try. I'm sure you know the first commandment, right?

 

[Brian2]

I believe Trinitarians claim Jesus RESUMED BEING GOD when he was raised up to Heaven… Scripture verse, please? Oh, there are none… oh dear!!

No trinitarians don't claim that.

 

[Soapy]

Please read my post #168 in the thread:
The JW's claim Jesus was not son of Adam.
It is very relevant here also :

If Jesus was not Son of Adam then he could not be Son of Man as well, as he had no seed of a man and he had only seed of a woman and with the same reason he was not Son of God also ,as he had no seed of G-d also. Right friends, please?

Regards

Jesus is not a son of Adam. All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…. Jesus was not PROCREATED through a Father who was a son of Adam - that’s why God said that the messiah would come from ‘The Seed of a Woman’.

The ‘Seed of a Woman’ is inert, lifeless, unspirited. It is the egg that is unceremoniously cast out each month from a woman in cycle.

Understand this: The creation of Adam (which means, ‘Red Earth’) involved the creation of a body from the DUST OF THE EARTH (Chemical elements). The body created WAS LIFELESS, INERT, UNSPIRITED! Scriptures tells us that this SOUL had no life in it, that it was not a ‘Living Soul’!

Scriptures tells us that GOD then, via His Holy Spirit, blew the “breath of life” into this inert, lifeless, unspirited, body, and thus: “The man became a LIVING SOUL”.

God put a Spirit into the lifeless body and Adam became a living person, an unspirited soul.

And, because the enlivening, the inspiriting, was by means of the HOLY SPIRIT, the man was SINLESS, RIGHTEOUS, AND HOLY. …

Adam, all the days of his life -UNTIL HE SINNED by the inducement of his wife and desire to seek knowledge and wisdom for himself, to understand good and bad, to be self-willed - he followed the spirit of God and did whatever God directed and commanded him to do. This ‘Following the Spirit of God… being led by the Holy Spirit of God’ on doing the WORKS OF GOD, is the very definition of a ‘SON’: ‘Son of the Father’, ‘Son of God’!!

God was his Creator, therefore God is his Father, because, ‘Father’, means:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings into being…’
• ‘He who gives life …’

God created Adam and so God is Adam’s Father.
Adam follows the Spirit of his Father, is led by the spirit of God, his Father, therefore Adam is ‘Son of his Father; Son of God’ (Luke 3:38).

Likewise, Jesus was CREATED … not PROCREATED … by God via God’s Holy Spirit. The inert seed of a woman providing the BODY of Jesus, and God inspiriting the body by his Holy Spirit:

• “THEREFORE THE SON […] BORN IS HOLY - THE SON OF GOD!”

Scriptures tells us! Jesus was thus born HOLY, SINLESS, AND RIGHTEOUS… and remained so throughout his life and even up to just before death on the cross…. (Just before, because: ‘He was counted among the sinners’ because he took upon himself all the sins of mankind, of Adam, to die as a penance for those sins, to bring salvation to mankind from the eternal death that was awaiting ALL MANKIND, even those who did no wrong against the law!)

And… Jesus is this called, ‘The LAST ADAM’, because no other of humanity will ever be CREATED this way.

So, again, no! Jesus was not a Son of Adam! He was not PROCREATED by a Son of Adam!

He is, though, a SON OF MAN…!!! This just means he is HUMAN, as distinct from being SPIRIT (alone).

 

[Brian2]

Dogknox20 wrote:
How many Jehovah’s Witnesses die as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, according to the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.
.......................................
But here's what the intro to the article really said:

"Youths Who Put God First 3-15

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."
.......................................
"In former times" refers to Christians from the first century onward. It does not refer specifically to JWs.

The article itself is about only 4 children who refused transfusions (or, they were told, they would die). It tells of their struggles with doctors, lawyers, courts, etc. Two of them died, two didn't. There's no mention of "thousands of Jehovah's Witness children."

Dogknox, your statement is not just misleading, IT IS FALSE!

I have not been keeping up with the discussion on blood transfusions but will throw in my bit about blood transfusions.
I do not see that a law has been made for Christians to abstain from blood.
The whole point of Acts 15 was to do away with the keeping of law as a means of salvation and the JWs have gone and made the results of that meeting into law.
The only reason that Acts 15 concludes with a letter to gentiles to abstain from blood etc is so that they might be able to still have fellowship with Jewish Christians who were zealous for the law and did not want to fellowship with gentile Christians.
Gal 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath. 17These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body that casts it belongs to Christ.…
Having said this I will also say that I do not judge a JW in what they do concerning transfusions.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy

Soapy claimed : "All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…." (post #1266)

Hi soapy. This is an unusual claim.

I do not understand how you can claim a newborn infant carries "inherited sin" through their Father.

I believe the early Christian doctrine was correct that newborns are not guilty of ANY sin at birth (i.e. they are "sinless") and, if they die after an hour, they die completely innocent of any sin.

1) Can you explain how it is that a newborn is guilty of any sin, or how a newborn, in your theory "inherits" sin?
2) What "sin" is a newborn guilty of committing?


Clear
φυειειακφιω

 

[Soapy]

No trinitarians don't claim that.

That’s right… Trinitarians always deny what they claimed elsewhere when they are found out with their false ideology!

Each Trinitarians creates Hod of her own ideology so they can deny the claims of all other Trinitarians when the truth is shown to them and the trinity fallacy is exposed.

Yes… Trinitarians following Phil 2 who say Jesus ‘Gave up being God and became a man’ then claim Jesus “RESUMED being God” when he was raised up to heaven at the right hand side of God!!

You cannot deny that Trinitarians say that… you can only say that YOU ‘DON’T SAY THAT’!!!

Other Trinitarians say that Jesus was ALWAYS GOD even when he was a man and so DID NOT GOVD UP BEING GOD (Phil 2) but merely VEILED his GODNESS…

Other Trinitarians say Jesus VOLUNTARILY DID NOT KNOW THINGS AS A MAN but DID KNOW THDM IN HOS GODNESS!

Still others say that it was the Father that stopped him knowing things as a man!

Yes, Trinitarians have a Myriad excuses as to how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time and yet still be subject to the Father (not the Holy Spirit, you notice, even though the Holy Spirit, trinity claims was fully God .. with no deficiencies as a physical human being… as Jesus would have had and did!)

But, Brian2, if you have yet another ideological nonsense explanation on this matter … please, I can add it to my list of trinity fallacies!!

Thank you!

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy

Soapy claimed : "All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…." (post #1266)

Hi soapy. This is an unusual claim.

I do not understand how you can claim a newborn infant carries "inherited sin" through their Father.

I believe the early Christian doctrine was correct that newborns are not guilty of ANY sin at birth (i.e. they are "sinless") and, if they die after an hour, they die completely innocent of any sin.

1) Can you explain how it is that a newborn is guilty of any sin, or how a newborn, in your theory "inherits" sin?
2) What "sin" is a newborn guilty of committing?


Clear
φυειειακφιω

SIN is a spiritual deficiency that separates us from God. You would know this if you were really a Christian. Adam separated himself from God when he countermanded what God tested him with: not to eat fruit from a certain tree. It was not the fruit that was harmful but the disobedience by eating. The command was given to ADAM, Not Eve, his wife. Therefore the sin is carried through the Father, NOT the MOTHER. But, of course, all children, all offspring, all procreation, is via a Father, via the Sperm … the Sperm that INSPIRITS the lifeless egg (seed) of a woman. This is PROCREATION. Therefore sin is carried to all children, to all mankind. Jesus was NOT SO CREATED, was not a procreation from a human Father… he was a CREATED (unspirited) by means of a HOLY INSPIRITOR… God!:

• ‘The Holy Spirit will overshadow you [Mary] and therefore the son to be born to you WILL BE HOLY, and called Son of God’

Jesus’ holy sinless snd righteous life was to result in death, … death that would pay the penance fir the sin of Adam… the salvation from the sin that brought DEATH TO ALL MANKIND .. even those who DID NOT SIN ACCORDING to THE LAW’

So, YES, even To innocent children. Before Jesus died!

I can see you don’t understand…!! The ‘Death’ is an ETERNAL DEATH … not immediate Death! The same thing Satan deceived Eve with in the garden of Eden! When Eve ate the fruit and didn’t immediately die she was pleased and enticed Adam also to eat. But God didn’t say they would drop down dead in the body… he was talking of an eternal death of their SPIRIT at the end of time. This is the ‘Death’ that Jesus’ salvation brought ….!!

So, I’m not surprised about anything you are surprised about. You don’t seem to actually know anything. You just keep asking others here for their opinions and then saying they are wrong… because you have ‘Historical Data’ from an unsubstantiated apostle of Christ that you believe because you can quote it.

I keep showing you that most of these quotations you are finding ARE NOT TRUTHFUL. But you, just because you can quote them, I say again, think they must be true….

Yes, @Clear, you would be one who thinks that the Earth is at the centre of the universe because there is ‘Historical Data’ showing that this was what the church taught…!!! Oh, and it was only LATER in time that the idea that the Earth was ‘only another planet’ circling a small star (Sun) in a solar system which was just one of many in a great number in a vast universe of galaxies…. A special small planet, nonetheless.

Your research is worthwhile but I tell you again that no worthwhile conclusion will come of it until you start to seek a point and purpose to it. There are so many views, so many variations, so many FALSE IDEOLOGICAL WRITINGS, that your way will only conclude that Christianity is loco…!

I show you the truth but you can’t stomach it … You even ask me about (surprised at) plainly obvious scriptural matter which shows you don’t know enough about what you are researching.

You CAN debunk what Trinitarians you dialogue with because, yes, much of what they claim IS EASILY DEBUNKED… That is exactly why other belief systems call Christianity a laughing stock…. Every trinitarian tells their own version of trinity … some and most of which do not make sense at all in any storyline Genesis to Revelation:

• Where is Jesus mentioned in Genesis?… He isn’t!
• What did in the Old Testament (supposedly) Jesus do in heaven? Nothing is said!! There are only PROPHESIES of what he WOULD DO IN THE FUTURE!
• How is Jesus GOD and yet is RANKED LOWER THAN THE FATHER… Yet is CO-EQUAL to the Father? ….!!
• God is IMMUTABLE… How is it Jesus CHANGED… yet is immutable?

Equal doesn’t mean equal to a trinitarian!
Immutable doesn’t mean immutable to a trinitarian!
God doesn’t mean God to a trinitarian!

But even yet, your research has not shown you that clear evidence of a false belief? Amazing?

The trouble is that when you wake up from your research malaise you will not have any belief in Christianity …

@Clear, there is only one truth:

• Jesus is a man born holy and sinless in the manner of the first man. Adam
• Jesus is a replacement son for the first ‘Son if God’ (Luke 3:38)… indeed, Jesus is called, ‘The Last Adam’ as no other human will ever be born sinless and holy by the enspiriting by the Holy Spirit OF GOD!
• The point and purpose of Jesus is that a HUMAN BEING should live a sinless and holy life by the standards of God, this be called ‘Son of God’, and INHERIT the rulership over the CREATED WORLD that GOD CREATED. God created it FOR HIM … for the Son of holiness.. not BY the Son of holiness!!

Trinitarian translators knew that they could not allow the verse in the Bible to claim that only ‘the Father’ created because it would destroy their false belief.. they ALTERED VERSES to make their ideology work for them …BUT NOT WELL ENOUGH. If you were really studying the scriptures then you would EASILY SEE THE DISPARITIES… e.g. trinity claims BOTH that THE Father CREATED… BY the Son… and that the Son created all by himself… Yet you disbelieve me when I point things like this out to you!!? You need ‘Historical Data’ to validate it… You won’t find it:

• ‘The Jews seek a sign’… but no sign will be shown to them (except the sign of Jonah… understand what that means!!!)

Trinity claims, by a verse, that Jesus ‘Had glory with the Father before time began’. You believe that? You can’t see that the verse suggests a subordinate ‘glory’ … ‘Give me the glory I had with (or beside) you ..!’ It show a glory GIVEN by the Father to the Son… BUT according to trinity, Jesus was EQUAL TO THE FATHER… both cannot be true! And yet again, scriptures shows Jesus saying that he is ‘Going TO THE FATHER!’ … not ‘Going BACK …’. How can that he if he came ‘FROM the Father’.

You cannot see these discrepancies?

And, the latest with Brian2… Jesus RESUMED BEING GOD … when he was RAISED up to Heaven TO BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD…!!!

What blinkers are over your researcher eyes?

Who is coming back to bring the world to rights?
Trinity says ‘God’… not the scriptures!!
The scriptures (by Jesus, himself) says, “The Son of Man” is coming with HIS POWERFUL ANGELS!

Powerful Angels… HIS??! Guess what:
‘Father, THEY WERE YOURS AND YOU GAVD THEM TO ME!’, says Jesus.

Guess whag Trinitarians say…! Don’t know?:
‘Jesus ALWAYS OWNED the angels and disciples and apostles that GOD GRANTED TO HIM’.

Are you still lacking the truth of the fallacy of the trinity you are researching? You can’t see when false ideology is put to you … because the false ideology is ‘Historical Data’???

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy ;

REGARDING THE THEORY THAT A NEWBORN IS GUILTY OF SIN AGAINST GOD

Soapy claimed : "All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…." (post #1266)
Clear said : " Hi soapy. This is an unusual claim.
I do not understand how you can claim a newborn infant carries "inherited sin" through their Father.
I believe the early Christian doctrine was correct that newborns are not guilty of ANY sin at birth (i.e. they are "sinless") and, if they die after an hour, they die completely innocent of any sin.

1) Can you explain how it is that a newborn is guilty of any sin, or how a newborn, in your theory "inherits" sin?
2) What "sin" is a newborn guilty of committing? (post #1268)

Soapy replied :
"...SIN is a spiritual deficiency that separates us from God." (post #1270)
"...Adam separated himself from God when he countermanded what God tested him with: not to eat fruit from a certain tree.." (post #1270)
" ...The command was given to ADAM, Not Eve, his wife. Therefore the sin is carried through the Father...." (post #1270)


As a Christian, I understand the concept that sin separates us from God.
I understand the concept that Adam made a moral choice, a transgression, that separated him from God.



1) Why do you believe that a newborn that is a distant descendant of a progenitor, is guilty of the same sin as a distant progenitor?
How does the fact that ADAM made a moral choice mean that a newborn that is born thousands of years later is guilty of the same moral choice?
Are you trying to imply that a newborn is guilty of disobedience to God because some else is guilty of disobedience?
How is a newborn guilty of “countermand[ing] what God tested him with : not to eat fruit from a certain tree”? (post #1270) when a newborn is unaware of any command of God, and lacks understanding of moral choice, and is unable to make the moral choice to obey OR disobey a commandment of God?


2) Are you confusing and conflating a specific moral choice with genetic inheritance?
For example,
If a newborns’ grandfather stole a horse or robbed a bank, how does the grandfathers transgression of moral law mean the newborn is guilty of “stealing a horse” or is guilty of “robbing a bank”?
How does this specific moral guilt of a grandfather transfer to a newborn in your religious theory?
Should the newborn be sent to prison upon arriving at adulthood because of his grandfather broke the law?
Do you think this is how a just God thinks and operates?


3) The earliest Christian literature describes the Christian belief that newborns were innocent of sin.
Why is your theory that newborns are guilty of “disobedience to God” more logical and rational than the earliest Christian doctrine that newborns are innocent of any sin?
Why are your personal Christian theories to be preferred over the beliefs of the earliest Christians?



4) Are personal attacks a characteristic of authentic christianity?

Soapy claimed : " You would know this if you were really a Christian. (post #1270)

Of course I am a Christian.
I love and honor Jesus with all of my heart, and I claim he is the Christ and Savior of all mankind and he wrought a superlative atonement for all mankind who, ultimately, must look to him for their salvation.

I am simply unfamiliar with YOUR personal religious theories and do not understand them.

I do not understand why your personal and modern theories are to be preferred to the beliefs of the more ancient and original Christianity of the earliest Christians.

Why are you insisting that other Christians must be aware of your personal religious theories, else they are not “really Christians”.
Do you think these sorts of personal attacks where Christians MUST believe in YOUR theories or they are "not really a Christian" are logical and fair?
Do you think personal attacks are a characteristic of mature, logical and loving Christianity?

The rest of your post seemed irrelevant to your theory regarding "inherited sin".


Clear
φυειφιφισιω

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus is not a son of Adam. All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…. Jesus was not PROCREATED through a Father who was a son of Adam - that’s why God said that the messiah would come from ‘The Seed of a Woman’.

The ‘Seed of a Woman’ is inert, lifeless, unspirited. It is the egg that is unceremoniously cast out each month from a woman in cycle.

Understand this: The creation of Adam (which means, ‘Red Earth’) involved the creation of a body from the DUST OF THE EARTH (Chemical elements). The body created WAS LIFELESS, INERT, UNSPIRITED! Scriptures tells us that this SOUL had no life in it, that it was not a ‘Living Soul’!

Scriptures tells us that GOD then, via His Holy Spirit, blew the “breath of life” into this inert, lifeless, unspirited, body, and thus: “The man became a LIVING SOUL”.

God put a Spirit into the lifeless body and Adam became a living person, an unspirited soul.

And, because the enlivening, the inspiriting, was by means of the HOLY SPIRIT, the man was SINLESS, RIGHTEOUS, AND HOLY. …

Adam, all the days of his life -UNTIL HE SINNED by the inducement of his wife and desire to seek knowledge and wisdom for himself, to understand good and bad, to be self-willed - he followed the spirit of God and did whatever God directed and commanded him to do. This ‘Following the Spirit of God… being led by the Holy Spirit of God’ on doing the WORKS OF GOD, is the very definition of a ‘SON’: ‘Son of the Father’, ‘Son of God’!!

God was his Creator, therefore God is his Father, because, ‘Father’, means:

• ‘He who creates’
• ‘He who brings into being…’
• ‘He who gives life …’

God created Adam and so God is Adam’s Father.
Adam follows the Spirit of his Father, is led by the spirit of God, his Father, therefore Adam is ‘Son of his Father; Son of God’ (Luke 3:38).

Likewise, Jesus was CREATED … not PROCREATED … by God via God’s Holy Spirit. The inert seed of a woman providing the BODY of Jesus, and God inspiriting the body by his Holy Spirit:

• “THEREFORE THE SON […] BORN IS HOLY - THE SON OF GOD!”

Scriptures tells us! Jesus was thus born HOLY, SINLESS, AND RIGHTEOUS… and remained so throughout his life and even up to just before death on the cross…. (Just before, because: ‘He was counted among the sinners’ because he took upon himself all the sins of mankind, of Adam, to die as a penance for those sins, to bring salvation to mankind from the eternal death that was awaiting ALL MANKIND, even those who did no wrong against the law!)

And… Jesus is this called, ‘The LAST ADAM’, because no other of humanity will ever be CREATED this way.

So, again, no! Jesus was not a Son of Adam! He was not PROCREATED by a Son of Adam!

He is, though, a SON OF MAN…!!! This just means he is HUMAN, as distinct from being SPIRIT (alone).

" All sons of Adam carry inherited sin "

Jesus did never say it, please. Right?

It is Pauline-Christian concept invented by the Deviant Paul and or the Anti-Jesus Pauline-Church to mislead Jesus simple followers from the truthful path Jesus followed and acted upon , I understand, please. Right?:

"The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale).[3][4]
Original sin - Wikipedia
Right?

Regards

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy ;

REGARDING THE THEORY THAT A NEWBORN IS GUILTY OF SIN AGAINST GOD

Soapy claimed : "All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…." (post #1266)
Clear said : " Hi soapy. This is an unusual claim.
I do not understand how you can claim a newborn infant carries "inherited sin" through their Father.
I believe the early Christian doctrine was correct that newborns are not guilty of ANY sin at birth (i.e. they are "sinless") and, if they die after an hour, they die completely innocent of any sin.

1) Can you explain how it is that a newborn is guilty of any sin, or how a newborn, in your theory "inherits" sin?
2) What "sin" is a newborn guilty of committing? (post #1268)

Soapy replied :
"...SIN is a spiritual deficiency that separates us from God." (post #1270)
"...Adam separated himself from God when he countermanded what God tested him with: not to eat fruit from a certain tree.." (post #1270)
" ...The command was given to ADAM, Not Eve, his wife. Therefore the sin is carried through the Father...." (post #1270)


As a Christian, I understand the concept that sin separates us from God.
I understand the concept that Adam made a moral choice, a transgression, that separated him from God.



1) Why do you believe that a newborn that is a distant descendant of a progenitor, is guilty of the same sin as a distant progenitor?
How does the fact that ADAM made a moral choice mean that a newborn that is born thousands of years later is guilty of the same moral choice?
Are you trying to imply that a newborn is guilty of disobedience to God because some else is guilty of disobedience?
How is a newborn guilty of “countermand[ing] what God tested him with : not to eat fruit from a certain tree”? (post #1270) when a newborn is unaware of any command of God, and lacks understanding of moral choice, and is unable to make the moral choice to obey OR disobey a commandment of God?


2) Are you confusing and conflating a specific moral choice with genetic inheritance?
For example,
If a newborns’ grandfather stole a horse or robbed a bank, how does the grandfathers transgression of moral law mean the newborn is guilty of “stealing a horse” or is guilty of “robbing a bank”?
How does this specific moral guilt of a grandfather transfer to a newborn in your religious theory?
Should the newborn be sent to prison upon arriving at adulthood because of his grandfather broke the law?
Do you think this is how a just God thinks and operates?


3) The earliest Christian literature describes the Christian belief that newborns were innocent of sin.
Why is your theory that newborns are guilty of “disobedience to God” more logical and rational than the earliest Christian doctrine that newborns are innocent of any sin?
Why are your personal Christian theories to be preferred over the beliefs of the earliest Christians?



4) Are personal attacks a characteristic of authentic christianity?

Soapy claimed : " You would know this if you were really a Christian. (post #1270)

Of course I am a Christian.
I love and honor Jesus with all of my heart, and I claim he is the Christ and Savior of all mankind and he wrought a superlative atonement for all mankind who, ultimately, must look to him for their salvation.

I am simply unfamiliar with YOUR personal religious theories and do not understand them.

I do not understand why your personal and modern theories are to be preferred to the beliefs of the more ancient and original Christianity of the earliest Christians.

Why are you insisting that other Christians must be aware of your personal religious theories, else they are not “really Christians”.
Do you think these sorts of personal attacks where Christians MUST believe in YOUR theories or they are "not really a Christian" are logical and fair?
Do you think personal attacks are a characteristic of mature, logical and loving Christianity?

The rest of your post seemed irrelevant to your theory regarding "inherited sin".


Clear
φυειφιφισιω

@Clear, I find you are so deficient in Christianity that when truth is shown you it comes across like a foreign language to you.

You conflate Spiritual sin with genetics… Yes, there is a link - but not from the viewpoint you look from.

All humanity, scriptures tells us, are SINFUL… this does not mean ANYONE HAS TO COMMIT A SIN to be so… because it is INHERITED.

What can you not understand. Oh, you need a ‘Historical Data’ document that says so… you cannot read the scriptures and see that!:

• “For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)
• “The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” (1 John 3:8)

This ‘sinfulness’ mentioned by John is of the pure wickedness type. Purposeful and deliberate wickedness. But there are other types of sinfulness:

• “… I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.” (1 John 5:16-17)

For the reasons above we are given relief through the blood of Christ in that his death DISCHARGED US from the eternal death brought by Adam’s sin. Our SIN is now not one that leads to eternal death BY ADAM but by our own self. We live or die by our own sins.

But still, there is further salvation if we are ‘BORN AGAIN’ in Christ… in that if we follow the ways of Christ Jesus then we will not SIN in a way that leads to ETERNAL DEATH (we will not transgress GOD’s LAW if we follow Jesus’ way… which dispels the trinity myth that Jesus is God!!).

You don’t like it when the truth is shown you…? Stop disagreeing with the truth and you will stop disliking it!

 

[Soapy]

" All sons of Adam carry inherited sin "

Jesus did never say it, please. Right?

It is Pauline-Christian concept invented by the Deviant Paul and or the Anti-Jesus Pauline-Church to mislead Jesus simple followers from the truthful path Jesus followed and acted upon , I understand, please. Right?:

"The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale).[3][4]
Original sin - Wikipedia
Right?

Regards

What do you think this verse means:

• “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22)

Are we not all ‘children of our Father’, Adam, by the flesh?

And Jesus said:

• ‘If you do not believe that I am he [The Messiah], you will die in your sins’ (John 8:24)

Do you want EXACT wording for everything claimed in scriptures, or should context and meaning play a part?

Jesus NEVER SAID, ‘I AM NOT GOD’… because there was no one CLAIMING that he was God… but it can be inferred when he DENIED that he had said he was ‘EQUAL TO GOD’, saying:

• ‘what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:36)

What do you want that would convince you of a truth from a true believer of both God and Christ? Or indeed, a lie from Trinitarians?

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you think this verse means:

• “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22)

Are we not all ‘children of our Father’, Adam, by the flesh?

And Jesus said:

• ‘If you do not believe that I am he [The Messiah], you will die in your sins’ (John 8:24)

Do you want EXACT wording for everything claimed in scriptures, or should context and meaning play a part?

Jesus NEVER SAID, ‘I AM NOT GOD’… because there was no one CLAIMING that he was God… but it can be inferred when he DENIED that he had said he was ‘EQUAL TO GOD’, saying:

• ‘what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:36)

What do you want that would convince you of a truth from a true believer of both God and Christ? Or indeed, a lie from Trinitarians?

None of them is written by Jesus in first person. All that was quoted from 4-Gospels were anonymous third person narrative documents named after person who never wrote them and the names were given for credulity purposes by the Pauline-Church after auditing/redacting them, I understand, please. Right?
None of them is a witness of even the event of Crucifixion of Jesus, please. Right?
Paul and Pauline-Church is anti-Jesus, as I understand, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy and other readers;


1) REGARDING SOAPYS THEORY THAT A NEWBORN IS GUILTY OF SIN AGAINST GOD

Soapy claimed : "All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…." (post #1266)
Clear responded : I do not understand how you can claim a newborn infant carries "inherited sin" through their Father.
I believe the early Christian doctrine was correct that newborns are not guilty of ANY sin at birth (i.e. they are "sinless") and, if they die after an hour, they die completely innocent of any sin.
1) Can you explain how it is that a newborn is guilty of any sin, or how a newborn, in your theory "inherits" sin?
2) What "sin" is a newborn guilty of committing? (post #1268)
Soapy replied :
"...SIN is a spiritual deficiency that separates us from God." (post #1270)
"...Adam separated himself from God when he countermanded what God tested him with: not to eat fruit from a certain tree.." (post #1270)
" ...The command was given to ADAM, Not Eve, his wife. Therefore the sin is carried through the Father...." (post #1270)
Clear responded : 1) Why do you believe that a newborn that is a distant descendant of a progenitor, is guilty of the same sin as a distant progenitor?
Are you trying to imply that a newborn is guilty of disobedience to God because some else is guilty of disobedience?
Soapy said : “all procreation, is via a Father, via the Sperm … the Sperm that INSPIRITS the lifeless egg (seed) of a woman. This is PROCREATION. Therefore sin is carried to all children, to all mankind” (poat #1270)
Soapy replied : "You conflate Spiritual sin with genetics… Yes, there is a link - but not from the viewpoint you look from. All humanity, scriptures tells us, are SINFUL… this does not mean ANYONE HAS TO COMMIT A SIN to be so… because it is INHERITED. (post #1273)


If I am misunderstanding you, then you must take some responsibility for this.
YOU mentioned “sperm”, “egg”, and sin is 'INHERITED". Are you NOT speaking of genetic inheritance?
Are you trying to claim that a newborn is guilty of all sins their progenitors committed by genetic inheritance???
If so, then :
How does a moral choice of a morally competent adult horse thief mean that his morally incompetent great, great, great, newborn grandson is guilty of stealing a horse at birth?

This seems incredibly irrational to me.
Does your mind work in such a way as to think a just God places ANY blame on a newborn because a distant progenitor sinned????
Does anyone on the forum think that this is how a just God thinks and acts?





2) The earliest Christian literature describes the Christian belief that newborns were innocent of sin.
Why is your theory that newborns are guilty of “disobedience to God” more logical and rational than the earliest Christian doctrine that newborns are innocent of any sin?
Why are your personal Christian theories to be preferred over the beliefs of the earliest Christians?



3) Are personal attacks a characteristic of authentic christianity?
Soapy claimed : " You would know this if you were really a Christian. (post #1270)
Clear replied : “Of course I am a Christian.
I love and honor Jesus with all of my heart, and I claim he is the Christ and Savior of all mankind and he wrought a superlative atonement for all mankind who, ultimately, must look to him for their salvation.
I am simply unfamiliar with YOUR personal religious theories and do not understand them.

Why are you insisting that other Christians must be aware of your personal religious theories, else they are not “really Christians”.
Do you think these sorts of personal attacks where Christians MUST believe in YOUR theories or they are "not really a Christian" are logical and fair?
Do you think personal attacks are a characteristic of mature, logical and loving Christianity?


4) QUOTING A NON-EXISTENT, OR BOGUS SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT A THEORY IS NOT SUPPORT OF A THEORY OR A PERSONAL INTERPRETATION
Soapy tried to offer as a "scripture" : “For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)

This is NOT an authentic translation of either the Hebrew of psalms 51:5 OR the 50:5 greek Septuagint of Christian usage.
1) Did you think readers who know the base hebrew or greek text would not notice this is a bogus translation?
2) Or, did you think this is a correct translation of some paraphrase and you are basing your interpretation on this text?

The Septuagint was the most popular old testament and most used by christians. The base text reads : "ιδου γαρ εν ανομιαισ συνεληφθην και εν αμαρτιαισ εκισσησε με η μητηρ μου".

There is no silly "I was born a sinner" in the authentic text.

If you either do not know the biblical text, or are unwilling to use authentic biblical text, how can you claim that your theories are "biblical"?

Soapy, First, offer readers the correct english text and THEN we can discuss that text and how you are trying to interpret it to theorize that newborn infants are "sinful".




Soapy said : “Our SIN is now not one that leads to eternal death BY ADAM but by our own self. We live or die by our own sins.”

I like this statement
THIS is a logical statement.
We are responsible for OUR OWN sins, not our bank robber grand fathers sins, nor are we responsible for Adams sins, nor anyone else's sins.

What sin has a newborn committed that they were born "sinful"?
What sin, should a newborn be punished for?


Clear
φυεισετζτωω

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy and other readers;


1) REGARDING SOAPYS THEORY THAT A NEWBORN IS GUILTY OF SIN AGAINST GOD

Soapy claimed : "All sons of Adam carry inherited sin through their Father…." (post #1266)
Clear responded : I do not understand how you can claim a newborn infant carries "inherited sin" through their Father.
I believe the early Christian doctrine was correct that newborns are not guilty of ANY sin at birth (i.e. they are "sinless") and, if they die after an hour, they die completely innocent of any sin.
1) Can you explain how it is that a newborn is guilty of any sin, or how a newborn, in your theory "inherits" sin?
2) What "sin" is a newborn guilty of committing? (post #1268)
Soapy replied :
"...SIN is a spiritual deficiency that separates us from God." (post #1270)
"...Adam separated himself from God when he countermanded what God tested him with: not to eat fruit from a certain tree.." (post #1270)
" ...The command was given to ADAM, Not Eve, his wife. Therefore the sin is carried through the Father...." (post #1270)
Clear responded : 1) Why do you believe that a newborn that is a distant descendant of a progenitor, is guilty of the same sin as a distant progenitor?
Are you trying to imply that a newborn is guilty of disobedience to God because some else is guilty of disobedience?
Soapy said : “all procreation, is via a Father, via the Sperm … the Sperm that INSPIRITS the lifeless egg (seed) of a woman. This is PROCREATION. Therefore sin is carried to all children, to all mankind” (poat #1270)
Soapy replied : "You conflate Spiritual sin with genetics… Yes, there is a link - but not from the viewpoint you look from. All humanity, scriptures tells us, are SINFUL… this does not mean ANYONE HAS TO COMMIT A SIN to be so… because it is INHERITED. (post #1273)


If I am misunderstanding you, then you must take some responsibility for this.
YOU mentioned “sperm”, “egg”, and sin is 'INHERITED". Are you NOT speaking of genetic inheritance?
Are you trying to claim that a newborn is guilty of all sins their progenitors committed by genetic inheritance???
If so, then :
How does a moral choice of a morally competent adult horse thief mean that his morally incompetent great, great, great, newborn grandson is guilty of stealing a horse at birth?

This seems incredibly irrational to me.
Does your mind work in such a way as to think a just God places ANY blame on a newborn because a distant progenitor sinned????
Does anyone on the forum think that this is how a just God thinks and acts?





2) The earliest Christian literature describes the Christian belief that newborns were innocent of sin.
Why is your theory that newborns are guilty of “disobedience to God” more logical and rational than the earliest Christian doctrine that newborns are innocent of any sin?
Why are your personal Christian theories to be preferred over the beliefs of the earliest Christians?



3) Are personal attacks a characteristic of authentic christianity?
Soapy claimed : " You would know this if you were really a Christian. (post #1270)
Clear replied : “Of course I am a Christian.
I love and honor Jesus with all of my heart, and I claim he is the Christ and Savior of all mankind and he wrought a superlative atonement for all mankind who, ultimately, must look to him for their salvation.
I am simply unfamiliar with YOUR personal religious theories and do not understand them.

Why are you insisting that other Christians must be aware of your personal religious theories, else they are not “really Christians”.
Do you think these sorts of personal attacks where Christians MUST believe in YOUR theories or they are "not really a Christian" are logical and fair?
Do you think personal attacks are a characteristic of mature, logical and loving Christianity?


4) QUOTING A NON-EXISTENT, OR BOGUS SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT A THEORY IS NOT SUPPORT OF A THEORY OR A PERSONAL INTERPRETATION
Soapy tried to offer as a "scripture" : “For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)

This is NOT an authentic translation of either the Hebrew of psalms 51:5 OR the 50:5 greek Septuagint of Christian usage.
1) Did you think readers who know the base hebrew or greek text would not notice this is a bogus translation?
2) Or, did you think this is a correct translation of some paraphrase and you are basing your interpretation on this text?

The Septuagint was the most popular old testament and most used by christians. The base text reads : "ιδου γαρ εν ανομιαισ συνεληφθην και εν αμαρτιαισ εκισσησε με η μητηρ μου".

There is no silly "I was born a sinner" in the authentic text.

If you either do not know the biblical text, or are unwilling to use authentic biblical text, how can you claim that your theories are "biblical"?

Soapy, First, offer readers the correct english text and THEN we can discuss that text and how you are trying to interpret it to theorize that newborn infants are "sinful".




Soapy said : “Our SIN is now not one that leads to eternal death BY ADAM but by our own self. We live or die by our own sins.”

I like this statement
THIS is a logical statement.
We are responsible for OUR OWN sins, not our bank robber grand fathers sins, nor are we responsible for Adams sins, nor anyone else's sins.

What sin has a newborn committed that they were born "sinful"?
What sin, should a newborn be punished for?


Clear
φυεισετζτωω

I wanted to say that you are incredibly crass for a person who does research. And that it’s no wonder that you cannot see the fallacy in trinity that you are struggling to understand from the ‘Historical Data’ that you rely on… ‘Historical data’ that is as much false as the trinity you try to believe for your research…. But I won’t!

SIN is not a ‘genetic’ inheritance… that’s what you keep trying to say. This shows you do not understand spirituality. It is not a ‘damaged Gene’ in a Father passed to a child.

I’m taking it you do not know your scriptures and so you do not know that Jesus says, in the scriptures, in answer to the disciples concern of a child with physical problems:

• ‘His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:2-3)

These verses deny a direct link of Sin to mentality or tendency to genetic deficiency. What it is meant to show is that because we do not follow the SPIRIT OF GOD: the Holy Spirit, we don’t do the things that are good for our bodies and mind. Because we follow our own mind instead of being directed by God; by the Father, we fail to behave in RIGHTEOUS and HOLY ways … and if is this: the Spiritual Lacking… which causes us to Sin.

But also consider these verses:

• “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:21-22)
• “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

How does a child ‘learn’ to sin?

They (we all) learn because we have inherited the propensity towards it. Most sin is a desire for personal gain by unholy unrighteousness means.

Children are born with the nature of their parents. Children are NOT BLANK SHEETS of human flesh. We are animals no less or more than any other animal on earth BUT endowed with the image of God (I guess you don’t know what that means… oh boy! It’s gonna be a long day!!) Every animal offspring gets its nature from its parents. This is how a duck knows how to quack, a dog knows how to bark, a fish knows how to swim. But humans also have FREE-WILL and this free-Will allows us to choose how we behave in every situation we encounter - IT IS THIS FREE-WILL that is affected by SIN. We CHOOSE to be righteous, we choose to be holy, we choose to be good… OR NOT!

A newborn may not understand righteousness, may not understand Holiness, may not understand good… a newborn is ‘selfish’. It seeks its own needs only: for sleep, for nourishment; for comfort; for security.

Is selfishness a Sin?

So, you ask how a newborn is guilty of sin….!!!

‘There is sin that leads to eternal death as there is sin that does not lead to eternal death!’

I think you are too hooked up on the humanity aspect of ‘Sin’ instead of the spirituality aspect. This shows what I suspected:

• You are NOT a Christian
• You do not understand the scriptures
• You are researching something that will never benefit you because your mindset is set wrong

As a child starts to develop, it sees and hears from its parents (and carers, guardians, and siblings) and free-will allows it to choose its behaviour pattern. The selfishness in the child might mean it does not share its toys, or might share its toys, might demand excess food that is not nourishing, might choose to do wrong things … because it chooses the unholy and unrighteous things it is exposed to. Quite right, a child is not born a burglar, a bank robber, a mugger, a cheat… but SELF-WILL can persuade the child to grow with that behaviour pattern BECAUSE OF SIN.

If the child was SINLESS they would not he (easily) persuaded to adopt those negative behaviours.

Therefore, all children are born with the potential to sin because of inherited sin from their parent, the parents who is also sinful…. Yes, right back to Adam.

Even Abraham was sinful.

Even David (God’s most beloved of the patriarchs) was sinful.

Even Solomon (wisest of all men) was sinful.

In fact, which person of all humanity was NOT SINFUL?

Not sure what you get from your negative research behaviour pattern when shown the truth. Are you trying to say that only what you believe is true IS true?

Yet you don’t know what truth is???

Exactly what is your research for - Why are you researching Christianity?

 

[Soapy]

We are responsible for OUR OWN sins, not our bank robber grand fathers sins, nor are we responsible for Adams sins, nor anyone else's sins.

What sin has a newborn committed that they were born "sinful"?
What sin, should a newborn be punished for?

I think you need to revise your research methods.

I did not say that anyone was responsible for the sin of Adam nor of anyone in their ancestry. How did you create that nonsense from what I said? Is it that you NEED to try to create discrepancies in everything someone says so you can say, ‘You are wrong?’ Tut!!

‘The sins of the Father are visited upon the children’.

This is ‘Inherited Sin’.

Jesus came, lived a Holy and righteous life, died for the salvation of all mankind FOR the sin of Adam.

Jesus is the ONLY human Being who took responsibility for the sin of ALL MANKIND. That’s the ethos of the scriptures concerning Jesus’ mission in that regard.

I can see you know little to nothing about the spiritual so let me put it in fleshly terms (Genetics, to you!):
A blond haired group of people are told to maintain their blond hair within the group by not interbreeding with a nearby group of red haired people. Interbreeding would weaken the blond tribe and introduce a genetic failing within the offspring.
But, one (or more) from the blond tribe disobey the command and interbreed with some from the red haired tribe.
The children procreated are now a mixed breed, sometimes red haired, sometimes blond haired, some time mixed toned, ginger, black, etc. These children are found with genetic defects which are passed onto THEIR CHILDREN…

EVIDENTLY the procreated children ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR their generic defects BUT THEY DO CARRY THE “SIN” of their parents… they do propagate the genetic defect to greater or lesser extents. Two children with the defects breeding with each other creating worse defects. Everyone of the affected children has inherited the ‘Sin’ from their first […]parent’s disobedience!

Do you get it now?

And on another issue (Pardon the pun!)
What do you think of the first baby from the illicit affair between king David and another man’s wife?

Did that child ‘DESERVED’ to suffer and die - through no fault of its own?

Of course not! But DAVID’s SIN was visited upon that child.

To answer your question about child dying before ‘sinning’:
… ‘Judge not…’ ‘All judgement is granted to the Son [Jesus Christ]’.

Scriptures does not speak of this matter except to say that:
‘There is sin that leads to [eternal] death [of the spirit] and there is sin that does not lead to [eternal] death [of the spirit].’

It is reasonable to say that the inherited sin in a newborn or before committing any self-Willed sin, might be classed as ‘[inherited] Sin not leading to eternal death’!

 

[Soapy]

The Septuagint was the most popular old testament and most used by christians. The base text reads : "ιδου γαρ εν ανομιαισ συνεληφθην και εν αμαρτιαισ εκισσησε με η μητηρ μου".

There is no silly "I was born a sinner" in the authentic text.

If you either do not know the biblical text, or are unwilling to use authentic biblical text, how can you claim that your theories are "biblical"?

Soapy, First, offer readers the correct english text and THEN we can discuss that text and how you are trying to interpret it to theorize that newborn infants are "sinful".

And so what is the correct English text… and how does that differ from what I gave?

 

[Brian2]

That’s right… Trinitarians always deny what they claimed elsewhere when they are found out with their false ideology!

Each Trinitarians creates Hod of her own ideology so they can deny the claims of all other Trinitarians when the truth is shown to them and the trinity fallacy is exposed.

I guess I do not know what other Christians might have said to you.

Yes… Trinitarians following Phil 2 who say Jesus ‘Gave up being God and became a man’ then claim Jesus “RESUMED being God” when he was raised up to heaven at the right hand side of God!!

You cannot deny that Trinitarians say that… you can only say that YOU ‘DON’T SAY THAT’!!!

Other Trinitarians say that Jesus was ALWAYS GOD even when he was a man and so DID NOT GOVD UP BEING GOD (Phil 2) but merely VEILED his GODNESS…

Other Trinitarians say Jesus VOLUNTARILY DID NOT KNOW THINGS AS A MAN but DID KNOW THDM IN HOS GODNESS!

Still others say that it was the Father that stopped him knowing things as a man!

So are you attacking that not all Christians are 100% familiar with the doctrine or that Christians disagree about aspects or what?
You are not really attacking the doctrine here.
Phil 2 actually tells us that Jesus continued to be God when He became a man. He had 2 natures, one as a servant and the other as the Son of God, the same nature as His Father.
It is hard to explain the consciousness of Jesus as a man. He was a man and lived as a man and relied on His Father for all things, so His Godhood took a back seat. Different Christians express it differently and some may think that Phil 2 tells us that Jesus was not God when He was a man. IMO they are wrong but not as wrong as you when you ignore Phil 2 and say that Jesus was not in existence to take on the form of a servant and that He never was in the form of God.

Yes, Trinitarians have a Myriad excuses as to how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time and yet still be subject to the Father (not the Holy Spirit, you notice, even though the Holy Spirit, trinity claims was fully God .. with no deficiencies as a physical human being… as Jesus would have had and did!)

But, Brian2, if you have yet another ideological nonsense explanation on this matter … please, I can add it to my list of trinity fallacies!!

Thank you!

All you seem to have is a list of things that you can use to mock the Trinity and Trinitarians with.
If Jesus was subject to the Father then Jesus did as God told Him through the Holy Spirit.