Debating the Trinity

[Butch5]

do you know the Work of the Holy Spirit? It isn't to speak of Himself sir

You will find the work of the Holy Spirit as claimed by the precrucified Christ in John 16


Did the Lord have the right to say this? By whose spirit did the precrucified Lord have the right to say all these things? And what He said is it just as the Father had given Him to say?

There's nothing that says God is a being who consists of three persons.

 

[Butch5]

I fail to see how you reached this conclusion. It does not follow that different modes are at play here.

You don't see it because you've accepted a logical contradiction. You've accepted the idea that there is a being who consists of three people. As such this being can require justice as the father, receive the punishment as the son and thus you your statement that it requires a trinity.

The problem is the contradiction. It is not stated anywhere in Scripture. I doesn't appear in church history until the 5th century with men like Augustine. It's illogical. There is no example that can be given. It's simply and explanation given by some men in the 5th century who didn't understand the Trinity. They tried to explain something they didn't understand and they got it wrong.

My response to you from earlier in the thread which you for some reason did not read.

Why do you say I didn't read it? I was simply showing that a trinity is not necessary for the Atonement.

I have given you examples. Please read my previous posts. I see no reason I need to repeat myself.

You've given analogies, not examples. What person is there who consists of three other persons?

Not illogical at all. I explain why it is logical, then you just state it is illogical as if it is an axiomatic fact. It is growing tedious.

It is axiomatic. There is not a single example in this world of a living being that consists of three like beings. Sure you can say persons consist of other living organisms. However, a human being doesn't consist of three other human beings. There is not a single example of this. Therefore it is axiomatic to say it doesn't exist. It also why it's illogical.


Yes, merely your interpretation and an incorrect one according to the entire Church tradition and mainstream history.[/QUOTE]

Well, since it wasn't an interpretation , but rather a quote from the creed it's hardly my opinion. However, it is the historic understanding of the Christian faith before it went astray after uniting with Rome after the council of Nicea. Also, what is believed by many is not the "entire Christian tradition". Eastern Christians held to the early understanding even after the West followed Augustine's teaching on the Trinity rather than staying with original teaching. The Trinity isn't the only place Augustine to the faith in a new direction.

To get learn of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity one only needs to look at the Ante-Nicene writers. If one looks at the subject without bias it is quite easy to see what they believed.

 

[miknik5]

The Scriptures say the Son is the representation of the invisible God, not the manifestation of Him.

Who is the Comforter?

The scripture says that He manifested The Fathers name to those whom the Father had given Him out of the world...the Ne which the Father had given Him
God is doing all things for His Nsmes sake and to show His Name as holy

Their is only ONE who came to do just that. The One who came forth from the Father and into the world

Sir. I suggest that maybe you should read John 14 through 17

 

[miknik5]

There's nothing that says God is a being who consists of three persons.

Is the Son separate from the Father ?

 

[miknik5]

You don't see it because you've accepted a logical contradiction. You've accepted the idea that there is a being who consists of three people. As such this being can require justice as the father, receive the punishment as the son and thus you your statement that it requires a trinity.

The problem is the contradiction. It is not stated anywhere in Scripture. I doesn't appear in church history until the 5th century with men like Augustine. It's illogical. There is no example that can be given. It's simply and explanation given by some men in the 5th century who didn't understand the Trinity. They tried to explain something they didn't understand and they got it wrong.





Why do you say I didn't read it? I was simply showing that a trinity is not necessary for the Atonement.






You've given analogies, not examples. What person is there who consists of three other persons?







It is axiomatic. There is not a single example in this world of a living being that consists of three like beings. Sure you can say persons consist of other living organisms. However, a human being doesn't consist of three other human beings. There is not a single example of this. Therefore it is axiomatic to say it doesn't exist. It also why it's illogical.


Yes, merely your interpretation and an incorrect one according to the entire Church tradition and mainstream history.

Well, since it wasn't an interpretation , but rather a quote from the creed it's hardly my opinion. However, it is the historic understanding of the Christian faith before it went astray after uniting with Rome after the council of Nicea. Also, what is believed by many is not the "entire Christian tradition". Eastern Christians held to the early understanding even after the West followed Augustine's teaching on the Trinity rather than staying with original teaching. The Trinity isn't the only place Augustine to the faith in a new direction.

To get learn of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity one only needs to look at the Ante-Nicene writers. If one looks at the subject without bias it is quite easy to see what they believed.[/QUOTE]
question.
Why did the risen Lord breathe into His Disciples and say
"Receive the Holy Spirit?"

 

[Wryetui]

I did not know you can actually debate the truth.

 

[miknik5]

There's nothing that says God is a being who consists of three persons.

Where's the risen lord sir and by whose spirit doess he live?

And by whose spirit did the Lord come into the World and do and say all that Was said and done?

And if it was by His own spirit that he said and did all these things then how did He have the right to add /enhance/ magnify the word of God and say you have heard it wrotten long ago BUT I SAY TO YOU...

Did He have the right to say this?

And did He have the right to make all the claims regarding Himself that He did

And is listening to Him as listening to God?

And if He was not the fullness of God made manifest and did not have The Spirit in FULL measure than where is the Lords spirit if He is separate from The Father

 

[Butch5]

The scripture says that He manifested The Fathers name to those whom the Father had given Him out of the world...the Ne which the Father had given Him
God is doing all things for His Nsmes sake and to show His Name as holy

Their is only ONE who came to do just that. The One who came forth from the Father and into the world

Sir. I suggest that maybe you should read John 14 through 17

There's a difference between manifesting a name and being the manifestation of a person.

 

[Butch5]

Is the Son separate from the Father ?

As a being, yes. You didn't answer my question. Who is the Comforter?

 

[Butch5]

Well, since it wasn't an interpretation , but rather a quote from the creed it's hardly my opinion. However, it is the historic understanding of the Christian faith before it went astray after uniting with Rome after the council of Nicea. Also, what is believed by many is not the "entire Christian tradition". Eastern Christians held to the early understanding even after the West followed Augustine's teaching on the Trinity rather than staying with original teaching. The Trinity isn't the only place Augustine to the faith in a new direction.

To get learn of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity one only needs to look at the Ante-Nicene writers. If one looks at the subject without bias it is quite easy to see what they believed.

question.

Why did the risen Lord breathe into His Disciples and say
"Receive the Holy Spirit?"

You'd have to ask Him that.

 

[Butch5]

I did not know you can actually debate the truth.

Apparently many think you can because they keep doing it.

 

[miknik5]

There's a difference between manifesting a name and being the manifestation of a person.

Then you will be waiting and are preaching another manifestation of God

And that will be the problem

Again sir. Where is Christs spirit (since He lives) if it is separate from the Fsther

And if Christs spirit is separate from the Father why does He say I will take from the Fsther and give to you. ALL THAT IS THE FATHERS IS MINE....this is why I say I WIL TAKE FROM WHAT IS MINE AND GIVE TO YOU

Why does the Risen Lord breathe into His disciples and say "receive the Holy Spirit"

Whose spirit is in The Risen Lord?

 

[Butch5]

Where's the risen lord sir and by whose spirit doess he live?

And by whose spirit did the Lord come into the World and do and say all that Was said and done?

And if it was by His own spirit that he said and did all these things then how did He have the right to add /enhance/ magnify the word of God and say you have heard it wrotten long ago BUT I SAY TO YOU...

Did He have the right to say this?

And did He have the right to make all the claims regarding Himself that He did

And is listening to Him as listening to God?

And if He was not the fullness of God made manifest and did not have The Spirit in FULL measure than where is the Lords spirit if He is separate from The Father

What does this have to do with what I said? Nowhere do the Scriptures say that God is one being in three persons. Your questions show me that you are looking for interpretation. This suggests to me that it is your "Interpretations" that you are using to draw the conclusion that there is a God who is one being that consists of three persons. However, as I've pointed out that is not stated in the Scriptures. It is not what the early Christians believed and it is illogical.

The early Christians are the one who coined the term Trinity in the Christian faith, yet they did not believe that there was a being called God that consisted of three persons. This shows that the Trinity can be understood in a manner that is totally different than the Athansian and modern definition of the Trinity. The early Christians believed in one God, the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and in the Holy Spirit which they termed a Trinity. However, at the same time they knew that there was one God, the Father.

 

[Butch5]

Then you will be waiting and are preaching another manifestation of God

And that will be the problem

Again sir. Where is Christs spirit (since He lives) if it is separate from the Fsther

And if Christs spirit is separate from the Father why does He say I will take from the Fsther and give to you. ALL THAT IS THE FATHERS IS MINE....this is why I say I WIL TAKE FROM WHAT IS MINE AND GIVE TO YOU

Why does the Risen Lord breathe into His disciples and say "receive the Holy Spirit"

Whose spirit is in The Risen Lord?

Please define spirit.

You're arguing from you interpretation instead of what is stated in Scripture. That Jesus says what is the Father's s mine doesn't necessitate that are the same being. Consider the "Prodigal Son"

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (Lk. 15:31-32 KJV)

Is Jesus saying that the father and the son were one being? Obviously not.

 

[miknik5]

What does this have to do with what I said? Nowhere do the Scriptures say that God is one being in three persons. Your questions show me that you are looking for interpretation. This suggests to me that it is your "Interpretations" that you are using to draw the conclusion that there is a God who is one being that consists of three persons. However, as I've pointed out that is not stated in the Scriptures. It is not what the early Christians believed and it is illogical.

The early Christians are the one who coined the term Trinity in the Christian faith, yet they did not believe that there was a being called God that consisted of three persons. This shows that the Trinity can be understood in a manner that is totally different than the Athansian and modern definition of the Trinity. The early Christians believed in one God, the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and in the Holy Spirit which they termed a Trinity. However, at the same time they knew that there was one God, the Father.

They understood that CHRIST must reign until all has been accomplished and that no man can come to the Fsther except through The Lord and by His sacrifice which washes and reconciles back to God in Himself a people marked as belonging to The father in The son through the holy spirit

And they understood that baby ears who have not heard the gospel first if they did not first understand that the only way a man has access to the father is through faith in the son that those who tried to bypass the very one who is the reason for the restored relationship means that they will never enter in properly and therefore remain outside The Door unto the Kimgdom which is only through the son

We are called to preach the gospel to all men

But these puffed up meaty discussions which the church fathers understood to those not born if His Spirit is meat rather than milk

And their eyes were on babies entering in fully through faith in Christ and the work of the cross

You remove Christ and the cross from the equation one does not have the Fsther
For he who does not have the son does not have the father who sent him and does not believe Gods testimony of His Son

Further the word clearly TELLS ALL MEN THST THE WILL AND THE WORK OF THE FATHER IS TJAT ALL WHO SEE THE SON AND BELIEVE IN HIM HAVE LIFE AND HE WILL RAISE THEM UP ON THE LAST DAY

JOHN 6

 

[miknik5]

We are called to honor the son JUST AS we honor the Fsther who sent Him

And he who does not honor the son HONORS NOT the Fsther who sent Him

Many will profess to have god(s) but deny the son

He who denies the son denies the father

Christ said any man who reject a me before men I will reject before my father in heaven

There is a unity and separating one from the other implies that men who do not understand the gospel can somehow enter or profess another way apart from the son

And no man can
There is no other way
And there is no other manifestation of the father
For the Fsther will not exalt anything or anyone above His Son nor will He allow any man to treat His sons sacrifice as unnecessary , just a suggestion, or secondary to any other thing

 

[miknik5]

And that is why these church leaders had to put into words to those men who were suggesting other ways (men who did not have the Spirit of God( explaining in words their spiritual restored relationship to the Fsther IN The Son and by and through The Holy Spirit

And they would not remove from the equation the lamb

 

[miknik5]

Please define spirit.

You're arguing from you interpretation instead of what is stated in Scripture. That Jesus says what is the Father's s mine doesn't necessitate that are the same being. Consider the "Prodigal Son"

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (Lk. 15:31-32 KJV)

Is Jesus saying that the father and the son were one being? Obviously not.

What did you think the son was giving us that is His?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You don't see it because you've accepted a logical contradiction.

There is no logical contradiction. Please supply a proof of this statement.

You've accepted the idea that there is a being who consists of three people. As such this being can require justice as the father, receive the punishment as the son and thus you your statement that it requires a trinity.

Thus it is not Modalistic, as I said

The problem is the contradiction.

What contradiction?There is none. Please supply corroboration. Just because you think it is, does not make it so.

It is not stated anywhere in Scripture.

Debatable, as many verses commonly quoted by trinitarians attest.

I doesn't appear in church history until the 5th century with men like Augustine. It's illogical. There is no example that can be given. It's simply and explanation given by some men in the 5th century who didn't understand the Trinity. They tried to explain something they didn't understand and they got it wrong.

This is historical error on your part or your opinion respectively.

Why do you say I didn't read it? I was simply showing that a trinity is not necessary for the Atonement.

Because I explained why Ransom atonement requires a trinity, which you never addressed.
Your one sentence statement does not show that the trinity is not required, it frankly shows nothing, not even what you understand as 'ransom atonement'.

You've given analogies, not examples. What person is there who consists of three other persons?

No, I gave examples. You, I and every person you have ever met fits this criteria.

It is axiomatic. There is not a single example in this world of a living being that consists of three like beings. Sure you can say persons consist of other living organisms. However, a human being doesn't consist of three other human beings. There is not a single example of this. Therefore it is axiomatic to say it doesn't exist. It also why it's illogical.

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of 'axiomatic' which means self-evident fact. You are speaking now as if it is a deduction. Regardless, you have still never shown it to be illogical by any method of logic nor is your reasoning sound as all humans consist of multiple interdependant selves according to modern medicine and science.

Well, since it wasn't an interpretation , but rather a quote from the creed it's hardly my opinion. However, it is the historic understanding of the Christian faith before it went astray after uniting with Rome after the council of Nicea. Also, what is believed by many is not the "entire Christian tradition". Eastern Christians held to the early understanding even after the West followed Augustine's teaching on the Trinity rather than staying with original teaching. The Trinity isn't the only place Augustine to the faith in a new direction.

To get learn of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity one only needs to look at the Ante-Nicene writers. If one looks at the subject without bias it is quite easy to see what they believed.

It is solely your interpretation, since no historian, church leader or the contemporary documents of that era, supports your contention.

 

[miknik5]

Please review post 122:

These words, "Well, since it wasn't an interpretation , but rather a quote from the creed it's hardly my opinion."

These were not my words, I inadvertently hit the quote feature and must have pulled some of his words in with my post to you...

Not that I disagree with these words, but they weren't mine.



[