I'm not accusing, just pointing out that regardless of attempting to use 'words' to talk around the obvious, three individual entities are three individual entities. Jesus is NOT the Father. Nor is He the Spirit of God. We KNOW this because we have the account of John witnessing the Spirit of God descending upon Christ.
Another morning, another strawman, in this case, accusing us of modalism. This simply shows extreme inconsistency on your part, or indeed, an uncertainty in terms of your position.
So the Bible makes it clear that The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are NOT 'persons'. God is God, The Son is The Son and the Holy Spirit is The Spirit of God.
The IDEA that there are 'three persons' is NOT offered in scripture. While bits and pieces of scripture are used in an attempt to show this concept, the concept itself is purely 'man made'.
On the contrary, your interpretation is man made, a point proven by your inability to argue your position in harmony with a literal interpretation John 1.
You know, those that speak in gibberish and call it tongues try and do the same thing. They pick bits and pieces of scripture and INSIST that they justify this behavior. But if one takes scripture as a WHOLE, it is obvious that 'gibberish' is not the tongues spoken of in the Bible.
A red herring, although regarding glossolalia, the Orthodox agree.
Once again, about 95 percent of what you use to defend what it is that say you believe are words of 'other men'. Doctrine and dogma created by MEN. And I have consistently offered scripture that shows that 'trinity' can't stand up to scripture. It only takes proof of ONE aspect of 'trinity' for the entire concept to crumble. I have offered many. Most that I have offered cannot be refuted. Only 'talked around'.
What you have posted is self-refuting, in that by your own repeated admission, it cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of John 1:1-14, and you have provided no alternate interpretation.
Fully Man/Fully God is an utter impossibility. For if Christ were fully God, then that means that ALL that God IS would be IN Christ. Yet we KNOW that the Father is WHO Christ prayed TO. And certainly He wasn't praying to that which He WAS?
Faulty reasoning based on faulty theology. You reject divine omnipotence, despite the very phrase "God almighty," which literally refers to the omnipotence of God. What is more, you mischaracterize the act of prayer, ignoring its soteriological importance.
Christ is NOT 'The Father'. The Father IS God. Singular. Uncompounded according to scripture.
Christ is also God, according to scripture which you prefer apparently to disregard.
And once again, let me point out: Even the Catholic Church that created 'trinity'
The Roman Catholic Church, as has been repeatedly pointed out, did not create this doctrine. Rome acceded to an Eastern doctrine.
I am sorry, but I will not allow these continual errors of yours regarding ecclesiastical history to slip through the cracks. Each time you persist in uttering this misrepresentation, I will draw attention to it. Anyone who wishes to verify my perspective need only Google the Council of Nicea.
STATE that the only manner in which 'trinity' can be revealed is through DIVINE REVELATION. That no particular scripture reveals 'trinity'. And even when revealed, it cannot be fully comprehended by ANY man. Yet you continually attempt to indicate otherwise. That 'trinity' CAN be found in scripture. In utter contradiction to the words of it's creators.
I have very little interest in what the RCs have said about this doctrine.
-snip long irrelevant quote of the Catholic Encyclopedia-
Another amusing error on your part is that the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is an authoritative source of RC doctrine. An encyclopedia which predates the formal dogmatic definition of the Assumption, Vatican II, and various important Papal decrees on a range of subjects (for example, the Encyclopedia's attack on vernacular in the liturgy reflects the old RC view, which the Orthodox reject, and which Rome itself rejected with the Novus Ordo Missae). As an Orthodox this quote is simply as relevant to my argument as the configuration of craters on the far sode of the Moon. Which is to say, not remotely relevant.
And UNLESS I place my faith in the supposed 'revelations' of OTHER MEN, I am forced to follow what has been revealed to ME. I do NOT place my faith in those that YOU call: "Church Fathers". The 'Church Fathers' that I believe are the TRUE 'Church Fathers' were the apostles. Not men that came along after they were already DEAD. I firmly believe that scripture itself is more dependable than the musings of men that came along AFTER.
Well, indeed; more than 1,900 years have passed since the time of your Lord, which renders your view, and that of Arius, Soccinius, Channing et al of reduced importance compared to the words of the Apostles, for example, St. John the Apostle. So when you say I should not read the words of St. John literally, I can only regard this as unfounded opposition.
And let me add this: what I believe HAS been revealed to me, is what I offer. Having prayed and studied the concept, I have been led AWAY from it rather than it being revealed to me as correct. I'm not 'making up' ANYTHING. Simply pointing out what I feel has been revealed to me in TRUTH. I have created NO 'mystery'.
As I have said repeatedly, I do not comment on private revelation, because I cannot verify its cause, origin, correct interpretation, intention or indeed authenticity. Philip K. Dick claimed a pink laser beam transmitted to him information on Gnosticism from an orbiting satellite sent from the dostant planet Albemuth. Was he lying, or was this the result of drug use, or a demonic manifestation? Who knows. What matters though is because it cannot be verified one way or the other, it is irrelevant. We have non-controversial data in the form of sacred Scripture, and I cannot ignore that or depart from the most ancient interpretations of it owing to a private revelation experienced by a third party, even if that revelation is true. Nor indeed, would I be prepared to accept such a revelation were I to receive it owing to Galatians 1:8; since I believe God neither lies nor contradicts Himself.
after the commandments and doctrines of men?
