Trinity is wrong.

[ContraMundum]

What a bunch of opinion and human reason; if there is three persons of the trinity than show me and stop trying to defend your false traditions with nonsense and religious bias. Can you not simply defend your beliefs with God Word instead of all this human reasoning????

Umm...can't you just stick to the text I cited and show me why we our exegesis is wrong in your opinion?

The Holy Spirit is God; God with in you, God with in all of us; that part of God with in us that in fact He is that divine part of God with in each one of us capable of speaking, loving, reproving, teaching, convicting and transforming and the only one that will lead and guide us into all truth. When was the last time the Holy Spirit revealed anything new to you; and no where is He addressed as the third person of the trinity.

Ummm......*sigh*.....Sticking to the text cited:
Simple question: can you have a relationship with the Holy Spirit? Can you also have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Can you have a relationship with the Father? Yes or no will suffice.

I have no theology; because I am anti-religious if this was so simple where is your chapter and verse that proves your false claim that God is three persons???? You are right about ” no Christian theology has ever, ever claimed that a "person" can only be a human being” because like you they blindly follow there religion ‘s and ignore what God Word declares. If I was misunderstanding Christian theology I would not be here expressing to you that none of your so called Christian theologians can show me God is made up of three persons in scripture.

a) Everyone has theology. IN fact, you've just spent many posts explaining yours to us. Keep it real, ok?

b) Can we just stick to the text? I don't think your knowledge of Christian theology is terribly sound, so let's avoid that topic and stick to the text.

I would be glad to debate Christian Universalism with you and using God’s Word not my opinion to prove you are 100% wrong.

I really don't care about your beliefs about universalism or not, and why would I want to debate you about them? I'm not convinced you are really all that interested in listening anyway.

You again place your faith in religion and not the Christ with in you; the Jews could claim the same as your quote for they too had” for centuries of prayer and reading” and they missed the very Christ that were waiting for.

You judge a lot and make a lot of proclamations about the faith of others. I don't really take that seriously.

I got to run I will address more in a few hours.

Must you?

 

[ContraMundum]

then what did you mean when you said trinitarians believe in the literal word of god ?

What do you think I meant? I mean, if you're gonna try to label me an idiot of some kind, just tell me now so I can put you on ignore, ok?

How is it we don't believe the literal word, and if we don't believe the literal word what kind of word do we believe? I beleive every word in the bible is the word of God, so how is it i don't believe the literal word, if you didn't mean that every thing should be taken literally?

Please don't waste my time again like you did last time. I really am losing interest rapidly in argumentative types who pigeonhole everyone and claim that everyone must be wrong and that they will set us all straight.

To answer this somewhat silly question of yours: No one takes everything in the Bible literally. We take what is obviously literal, literal. We take what is not, not. Pretty simple. Don't trivialise me, ok?

 

[ContraMundum]

If some scripture said Jesus is God, God the Father is God, and the holy spirit is god, yet there is only one god, then i would agree with you. but no scripture says Jesus is God. According to what scripture says, and not your interpretations of it, God the father is the only true god, and god is holy and god is spirit, and therefore god the father is holy spirit, and since there is only one holy spirit, god the father is the holy spirit. there aren't 2 holy spirits just one, and it is the one and only true god.

You have no scripture saying Jesus is god, just scriptures you interpret that way , and most of the ones you interpret to mean that Jesus is god are spurious, like 1 john 5.7, and many many more. you name a scripture in defence of your doctrine that Jesus is god, and 99 percent of the time it is the spurious version of that scripture. So you interpret scripture to mean that Jesus is God, you interpret scripture to mean that the holy spirit is not god the father, and say no other conclusion can come from these so called facts but that god is a trinity. I would have to agree with you, if your interpretation that JEsus is god, and the holy spirit is not god the fahter. But your interpretation is not correct. name a scripture in support of your doctrine,and I'll probably be able to show how it is a forgery. I won't be able to show you just like i was unable to show you how your quote of col. 3.16 is an interpolation of scripture, but i did give proof that at least one word in it is spurious. you just stated you couldn't understand the quote from Bruce Metzger. called it latin catholic mumbo jumbo, which it wasn't. but it was a good cop out on your part.

Well, I'm sorry you have so much trouble with this. In fact, I've always been sorry for you. Look- only God can forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins. At that point he is either a deluded man or a liar, or He is God incarnate. Make up your mind. You can't have an each way bet on this.

Secondly, God that Father is not the Holy Spirit, as God sends the Holy Spirit to us, and we are told that the Holy Spirit is a person, with personal attributes (like taking a physical shape) and so forth (you know the texts).

At the baptism of Jesus, we had a voice from Heaven (God the Father), the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove (God the Holy Spirit) and the guy who forgives sins and walks on water being baptised (God the Son). There's not a lot to interpret here. This isn't Catholic mumbo-jumbo, it's just a statement of an incident in life of Jesus. The puzzle becomes this: where was God at the baptism of Jesus? Was He the voice from Heaven? Was He the Holy Spirit in the form like a dove? Was He Jesus? Or was God all three, ye One? Unless all three were God, then you have to work out which of those three was God at that moment (modalism), or deny the Divinity of one or two of the Three, or deny the personal attributes or literal existance of one or two of the Three. You're in a pickle. This isn't mumbo-jumbo, just dealing with a text.

Also- I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to your references to some conversation with me involving Bruce Metzger or something- perhaps you have me mixed up with another poster. Anyway, if you want to talk Biblical criticism, that's another topic. Let's just stick to the canon for now, unless of course you are properly trained in Biblical criticism in which case we can talk about that on another thread.

 

[ContraMundum]

I just did in two posts which you have not addressed in any meaningful way. There is one God. The Father is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Father or the Son. There is one God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, have distinct selves, minds, and wills.

He's just playing word games with you, Der Alter. He seems pretty confused about what a "person" is regarding Divinity and why we refer to Jesus as the "second" person and not the first or third, for example. He wants you to find a single text that parrots an explanation of the sum of Christian doctrine- which is a pretty ridiculous and very uneducated way of debating. Ask him to find a single text that supports the notion of the existence of a "Christian Universalist".

 

[Ichabod 2]

I just did in two posts which you have not addressed in any meaningful way. There is one God. The Father is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Father or the Son. There is one God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, have distinct selves, minds, and wills.

Like I said what you are missing in your puzzel is one piece; the concept of three persons. You find that piece you have a trinity. If you cannot find that piece you have a false doctrine.

Yes there is one God; and no the Father was not the son, when the son walked the earth because the son was manfested in the flesh. Like I posted earlier, that did not mean God (the Father) stop being God.

That manifestation of God became Jesus; not the second person of the trinity (no such thing).

The Holy Spirit is that divine part of God with in each one of us (not the third person of the trinity (no such thing). If you cannot prove God is three persons you do not have a trinity; you just do not see this.

Th following is a direct past from "Easton's Bible Dictionary.


A word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

There is no way I can believe the above unless you can prove God is three persons based on God's Word and not your opinion or some man's bias opinion. This is doctrine to put God in a box so litttle religious man can some hw believe He has a grasp on a truth; God can never fit in some man made box.

 

[Ichabod 2]

He's just playing word games with you, Der Alter. He seems pretty confused about what a "person" is regarding Divinity and why we refer to Jesus as the "second" person and not the first or third, for example. He wants you to find a single text that parrots an explanation of the sum of Christian doctrine- which is a pretty ridiculous and very uneducated way of debating. Ask him to find a single text that supports the notion of the existence of a "Christian Universalist".

Here is a word game for you. "three persons". Show me that and you have solved the word game. If you can't find those two words togeather in God's Word there is no trinity. SO SIMPLE....

 

[ContraMundum]

Here is a word game for you. "three persons". Show me that and you have solved the word game. If you can't find those two words togeather in God's Word there is no trinity. SO SIMPLE....

We've done it already...you need to show us why the texts we cited do not describe Three Persons yet One God. Over to you.

 

[2ducklow]

What do you think I meant? I mean, if you're gonna try to label me an idiot of some kind, just tell me now so I can put you on ignore, ok?

I told you what I thought you meant, and you said it wasn't that, now you refuse to say what you meant.

Please don't waste my time again like you did last time. I really am losing interest rapidly in argumentative types who pigeonhole everyone and claim that everyone must be wrong and that they will set us all straight.

To answer this somewhat silly question of yours: No one takes everything in the Bible literally. We take what is obviously literal, literal. We take what is not, not. Pretty simple. Don't trivialise me, ok?

There ye go.
what is obivously literal to you is in no way obviously literal to me. It is obviously literal to you that the word literally became flesh, it is obviously not literal that the word became flesh.

 

[ContraMundum]

I told you what I thought you meant, and you said it wasn't that, now you refuse to say what you meant.

What's that meant to mean?

There ye go.
what is obivously literal to you is in no way obviously literal to me. It is obviously literal to you that the word literally became flesh, it is obviously not literal that the word became flesh.

Obviously. LOL

 

[Ichabod 2]

We've done it already...you need to show us why the texts we cited do not describe Three Persons yet One God. Over to you.

First of all you have never showed me three persons in any text; only in your imaginations. So why would I even try; the three persons are not there; that is why you are still there your trying to convince me to believe your lie; you cannot prove.

It is like claiming you made beef soup and you left out the beef; all you have is vegetable soup but you’re going to call it beef soup. God’s Word is a puzzle; a great big puzzle so complex we have twenty thousand religions all playing by their own rules and ignoring what God’s Word says; just like our Jewish brothers in Jesus day. You act like you have all the piece; I showed you a missing piece and you act like what I said is not relevant; because your creed is all that matters. What really matters is the truth; but you cannot face the truth.

 

[2ducklow]

Well, I'm sorry you have so much trouble with this. In fact, I've always been sorry for you. Look- only God can forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins. At that point he is either a deluded man or a liar, or He is God incarnate. Make up your mind. You can't have an each way bet on this.

Jesus can forgive sins because all power in heaven and earth is given to him by God. If Jesus is god then he wouldn't need anyone to give him that power. So that proves he is not god.

Secondly, God that Father is not the Holy Spirit, as God sends the Holy Spirit to us, and we are told that the Holy Spirit is a person, with personal attributes (like taking a physical shape) and so forth (you know the texts).

WE are not told that the holy spirit is a person anywhere in the bible with personal attributes, that is your interpretation. I explained very clearly how god the father is the holy spirit, you refuse to deal with my explanation. refusing to deal with my explanation and showing how my explanation is wrong is just evading the truth on your part. Evading my explanation is no proof that I am wrong. here ya go again.

Is god the Father the one and only true god? yes
Is God a spirit? yes
Is god Holy? yes
If God is holy and a spirit can you put the two together and come up with 'god is a holy spirit" .? yes
IF god is God the Father, and god is a holy spirit, is God the Father a holy spirit ? yes
IF there is only one Holy spirit, then is God the Father the holy spirit because he is a holy spirit? yes

Now show me what is wrong with my logic here, . Which one of the questions I answered yes to is illogical?


AS to yur point that God sends the holy spirit, that is just God personifing his spirit just as mary personified her soul in her statement 'my soul doth magnify the Lord."

At the baptism of Jesus, we had a voice from Heaven (God the Father), the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove (God the Holy Spirit) and the guy who forgives sins and walks on water being baptised (God the Son). There's not a lot to interpret here. This isn't Catholic mumbo-jumbo, it's just a statement of an incident in life of Jesus. The puzzle becomes this: where was God at the baptism of Jesus? Was He the voice from Heaven? Was He the Holy Spirit in the form like a dove? Was He Jesus? Or was God all three, ye One? Unless all three were God, then you have to work out which of those three was God at that moment (modalism), or deny the Divinity of one or two of the Three, or deny the personal attributes or literal existance of one or two of the Three. You're in a pickle. This isn't mumbo-jumbo, just dealing with a text.

God personified his spirit in the verses you refer to just as Mary personified her soul. My way results in no illogic, your way results in the illogic of 3 persons being one person or 3 beings being one being. the illogic that your interpretation results in condemns your interpretation as being false. there is no illogic in my interpretation so it can't be condemned on the grounds of logic as yours is.

Also- I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to your references to some conversation with me involving Bruce Metzger or something- perhaps you have me mixed up with another poster.

Yea I was, sorry.

Anyway, if you want to talk Biblical criticism, that's another topic. Let's just stick to the canon for now, unless of course you are properly trained in Biblical criticism in which case we can talk about that on another thread.

99 percent of scripture used to support trinity is either spurious, or an interpolation of scripture. The only way to prove it is to quote reliable sources on the subject. I can do that and have done that. Your statement here leads me to believe you don't want to face that truth.

 

[ContraMundum]

First of all you have never showed me three persons in any text; only in your imaginations. So why would I even try; the three persons are not there; that is why you are still there your trying to convince me to believe your lie; you cannot prove.

So, you know we're wrong but can't demonstrate why by referring to the texts?

It is like claiming you made beef soup and you left out the beef; all you have is vegetable soup but you’re going to call it beef soup. God’s Word is a puzzle; a great big puzzle so complex we have twenty thousand religions all playing by their own rules and ignoring what God’s Word says; just like our Jewish brothers in Jesus day. You act like you have all the piece; I showed you a missing piece and you act like what I said is not relevant; because your creed is all that matters. What really matters is the truth; but you cannot face the truth.

We do have all the pieces that we need- God has ensured that. There are no missing pieces in God's revelation for us at present, and any missing piece one might perceive will have to be provided by God in due course, according to His time. It will not be provided by you.

Can you please just deal with the revelation we have been given and leave speculation out of it (eg.the Word that you seem to ramble on about but won't discuss in any depth)? I mean, you're not really making sense or headway. All you do is accuse everyone lease on this thread of being evasive but you won't exegete a single text for us to prove we are wrong. We gave you texts- you didn't even try to come to terms with them or handle them, but just keep saying "show me a text that says so-and-so", and we're saying "look at what's been given and prove we're wrong first". This bizzare "Ichabod2-ism" is wearing thin. Try replying to texts, not just replying to what you think we are saying. I've already proven that you don't have a clue what Christians mean when we say "person"- a point you didn't even bother to acknowledge. It's called two-way discussion. Try it sometime. Until you do, consider yourself on probation for the "time waster" box.

 

[ContraMundum]

Jesus can forgive sins because all power in heaven and earth is given to him by God. If Jesus is god then he wouldn't need anyone to give him that power. So that proves he is not god.
WE are not told that the holy spirit is a person anywhere in the bible with personal attributes, that is your interpretation. I explained very clearly how god the father is the holy spirit, you refuse to deal with my explanation. refusing to deal with my explanation and showing how my explanation is wrong is just evading the truth on your part. Evading my explanation is no proof that I am wrong. here ya go again.

When Jesus forgave sins and so forth, the people who were there present understood Him to be claiming equality with God, and hence they intended to stone Him. In other words, in Hebraic theology and thought, only God can forgive sins, only God can say "before Abraham was, I AM", and for a mortal to say such things is to claim God's unique Divinity.

Not to mention that Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega- a title only God claims according to Isa.

Is god the Father the one and only true god? yes
Is God a spirit? yes
Is god Holy? yes
If God is holy and a spirit can you put the two together and come up with 'god is a holy spirit" .? yes
IF god is God the Father, and god is a holy spirit, is God the Father a holy spirit ? yes
IF there is only one Holy spirit, then is God the Father the holy spirit because he is a holy spirit? yes

Now show me what is wrong with my logic here, . Which one of the questions I answered yes to is illogical?

It's logical- but so is the Trinity, or modalism, or anything, really . Logic isn't really the issue here. One man's logic is another man's folly. Logic isn't proof, it's argument. They should have taught you that in university.

Again- where was God at the Baptism of Jesus?

AS to yur point that God sends the holy spirit, that is just God personifing his spirit just as mary personified her soul in her statement 'my soul doth magnify the Lord."

That isn't my point. How does your version of God personify His Spirit? Does he separate a portion of himself? Did Mary separate her soul from herself in your example? Over to you.

God personified his spirit in the verses you refer to just as Mary personified her soul. My way results in no illogic, your way results in the illogic of 3 persons being one person or 3 beings being one being.

Why is that illogical? Scripture is not a scientific book. Donkeys speak, planets flood, fire comes from Heaven, God dwells in clouds, guys come back from the dead, seas part, pillars of fire lead people through deserts......is this all not illogical by your version of logic? I have no problem logically with the Trinity- my logic is just not yours. I think it's logical to accept revelation even if it doesn't make sense- I'm finite, He's not.

99 percent of scripture used to support trinity is either spurious, or an interpolation of scripture. The only way to prove it is to quote reliable sources on the subject. I can do that and have done that. Your statement here leads me to believe you don't want to face that truth.

Let's not get into Biblical criticism, because I will sink your ship in about five minutes- and leave you with no religion at all. Every verse of the Bible was added by a man at some point. After centuries men had to decide on what would be canon. Any textual criticism of the Bible needs to remember that the Church had a faith centuries before it had a complete Bible, so the Bible will in turn reflect its faith. Any canonised text will reflect the faith of those canonising it, not the other way around. We can easily (very easily) prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was in good shape and was the faith of Christians before the canon was completed. In fact, Trinitarians made the canon for you- so, if they were led by God to verify the canon, then you must concede that "logically" they were already led by God to believe in the Trinity. Either the Church is led by God, or it isn't. One or the other. Because you believe the church's canon of scripture, you de facto believe the Church to be led by God, which means the Church was led to the understand the mystery of the Trinity. "Logical", no?

So, if you want to debate when such-and-such text came into being...I have all day, but you need to understand that I don't think the Bible fell out of the sky and landed in Paul's lap, only to be stolen by drooling Christians, who added their pagan beliefs to it, the "real" Christians having to unravel the mess 20 centuries later. That's just too whacko for me to believe and it has no support at all in history. You'll lose that debate badly unless you are prepared to make a contrary claim about scripture that can be supported by history.

 

[Ichabod 2]

So, you know we're wrong but can't demonstrate why by referring to the texts?



We do have all the pieces that we need- God has ensured that. There are no missing pieces in God's revelation for us at present, and any missing piece one might perceive will have to be provided by God in due course, according to His time. It will not be provided by you.

Can you please just deal with the revelation we have been given and leave speculation out of it (eg.the Word that you seem to ramble on about but won't discuss in any depth)? I mean, you're not really making sense or headway. All you do is accuse everyone lease on this thread of being evasive but you won't exegete a single text for us to prove we are wrong. We gave you texts- you didn't even try to come to terms with them or handle them, but just keep saying "show me a text that says so-and-so", and we're saying "look at what's been given and prove we're wrong first". This bizzare "Ichabod2-ism" is wearing thin. Try replying to texts, not just replying to what you think we are saying. I've already proven that you don't have a clue what Christians mean when we say "person"- a point you didn't even bother to acknowledge. It's called two-way discussion. Try it sometime. Until you do, consider yourself on probation for the "time waster" box.

There is no text that says God is made up of three persons. You cannot produce it; manufacture it or dream this information to be in God’s Word; it is not there. You are wrong and no matter how many ways to spin it there is no trinity with out three person.

Show me one piece that says God is three persons and I will agree. There is no revelation if there is no Word of God to back it. You have a missing piece and you still tell me you have solved the puzzle; there is no trinity with out backing from God's Word not your opinion that god is made up of three persons. Give me the three persons and you have solved the puzzle.


No I disagree with your false doctrine, it is not revelation it is a false view of who God is God is one not three persons. How can there be depth if there nothing there; you assume there is a trinity; that is not good enough. The word trinity is a Latin word and not Biblical God is one, and never is referred as three persons.


If you like post one verse at a time and we will go over each verse in depth.

 

[2ducklow]

When Jesus forgave sins and so forth, the people who were there present understood Him to be claiming equality with God, and hence they intended to stone Him. In other words, in Hebraic theology and thought, only God can forgive sins, only God can say "before Abraham was, I AM", and for a mortal to say such things is to claim God's unique Divinity.

IF Jesus is equal to God then that proves that he is not God, IF I am equal to you that proves that I am not you.

Plus, unbelieving Jews accusing Jesus of being anything proves nothing.

Not to mention that Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega- a title only God claims according to Isa.

You are wrong. It does not. alpha and omega are greek letters, the OT wasn't written in Greek.

It's logical- but so is the Trinity, or modalism, or anything, really . Logic isn't really the issue here. One man's logic is another man's folly. Logic isn't proof, it's argument. They should have taught you that in university.

Well I disagree, something either is or isn't logical, Our opinions do not affect whether something is or isn't logical. 3 are one (literally as trinitarians claim) is always illogical.
3 pies are not one pie.

Again- where was God at the Baptism of Jesus?

at his baptism.
AS to yur point that God sends the holy spirit, that is just God personifing his spirit just as mary personified her soul in her statement 'my soul doth magnify the Lord."

That isn't my point. How does your version of God personify His Spirit?

god personifies his spirit in the bible at times at times he doesn't, when the word of God says "the Holy spirit descended like a dove" the holy Spirit is being spoken of as if it were a seperate being , just as mary spoke of her soul as if it were a seperate being, that is personification.

If I say "My heart goes out to the lost" I have personified my heart in that I have spoken of it as if it were another being other than me, which it is not, In fact my heart isn't even a being but I spoke of it as if it were.

Does he separate a portion of himself? Did Mary separate her soul from herself in your example? Over to you.

No he does not seperate a portion of himself, that is your doctrine not mine. God is one is my doctrine, and he is the holy spirit and he is God the father, God the father is the holy spirit and god speaks of his spirit sometimes AS IF it were another being, which is personification. I say it's personification you say it's 2 beings that are one being. 2 beings are one being is illogical, personifications are not illogical. If you think you can just decide something is logical and therefore it is logical, you are very mistaken.

Why is that illogical? Scripture is not a scientific book. Donkeys speak, planets flood, fire comes from Heaven, God dwells in clouds, guys come back from the dead, seas part, pillars of fire lead people through deserts......is this all not illogical by your version of logic?

no every example you gave is logical. they are all impossible without God's power to cause it to happen, but none of them are illogical. Illogical is not the same as impossible. What I 'm seeing here is in your world nothing is illogical with God , where as in my world nothing is impossible with God.

I have no problem logically with the Trinity- my logic is just not yours. I think it's logical to accept revelation even if it doesn't make sense- I'm finite, He's not.

we should test the spirits when we receive revelation. IF it is revelation from god it makes sense and is logical, if it doesn't make sense and is illogical then it didn't come from god. I don't just accept revelations I receive cause I know there is spiritual warfare going on and the other side makes revelations about scripture as well. I test it and one of the tests I use is "does it make sense?" If it doesn't make sense, then in my book it didnt' come from god. 3 are one doesn't make sense so in my book it didn't come from god.

Let's not get into Biblical criticism, because I will sink your ship in about five minutes- and leave you with no religion at all. Every verse of the Bible was added by a man at some point. After centuries men had to decide on what would be canon. Any textual criticism of the Bible needs to remember that the Church had a faith centuries before it had a complete Bible, so the Bible will in turn reflect its faith. Any canonised text will reflect the faith of those canonising it, not the other way around. We can easily (very easily) prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was in good shape and was the faith of Christians before the canon was completed. In fact, Trinitarians made the canon for you- so, if they were led by God to verify the canon, then you must concede that "logically" they were already led by God to believe in the Trinity. Either the Church is led by God, or it isn't. One or the other. Because you believe the church's canon of scripture, you de facto believe the Church to be led by God, which means the Church was led to the understand the mystery of the Trinity. "Logical", no?

No because I believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God. when Paul wrote "I would that ye all spake in tongues" he wrote it under the inspiration of God. It wasn't his idea it was god's idea. Paul was probably in accord with it, but not necessarily. I believe many of the scirptures in the bible were written by men who did not fully understand what they meant and sometimes had no idea what they meant for they were by inspiration of god, or god breathed as 1 tim 3.16 puts it. so our starting point is different and i can see it would do no good to point out the trinitarian interpolations of scripture to you.

So, if you want to debate when such-and-such text came into being...I have all day, but you need to understand that I don't think the Bible fell out of the sky and landed in Paul's lap, only to be stolen by drooling Christians, who added their pagan beliefs to it, the "real" Christians having to unravel the mess 20 centuries later.

well I wouldn't put it like that but essentially that is how i view the bibles origin. so like i said it would do no good to point out the numerous trintiarian interpolations of scripture in the bible.

That's just too whacko for me to believe and it has no support at all in history. You'll lose that debate badly unless you are prepared to make a contrary claim about scripture that can be supported by history.

Mine's supported by scriptrue, I believe God when he said'


(Rotherham) 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture, [is] God-breathed, and profitable--unto teaching, unto conviction, unto correction, unto the discipline that is in righteousness,--

God said that through Paul, It's not jsut pauls opinion, it is God's opinion.

 

[k2svpete]

Well, I'm sorry you have so much trouble with this. In fact, I've always been sorry for you. Look- only God can forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins. At that point he is either a deluded man or a liar, or He is God incarnate. Make up your mind. You can't have an each way bet on this.

Yes only God has the power to forgive sin. Problem is that you overlook the filling of Jesus with the Holy Spirit (and granting of the authority of God at this point) when he was baptised. The Holy Spirit being the manifestation of God's power and character. From this point Jesus began his ministry, before this he was another man living in Israel.

Secondly, God that Father is not the Holy Spirit, as God sends the Holy Spirit to us, and we are told that the Holy Spirit is a person, with personal attributes (like taking a physical shape) and so forth (you know the texts).

No God is not the Holy Spirit but it is the manifestation of His power and characteristics. The attributes of the Holy Spirit are those of God. Remember that no one has seen God Himself and that sin and God cannot co-exist. You know the scriptures.

At the baptism of Jesus, we had a voice from Heaven (God the Father), the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove (God the Holy Spirit) and the guy who forgives sins and walks on water being baptised (God the Son). There's not a lot to interpret here. This isn't Catholic mumbo-jumbo, it's just a statement of an incident in life of Jesus. The puzzle becomes this: where was God at the baptism of Jesus? Was He the voice from Heaven? Was He the Holy Spirit in the form like a dove? Was He Jesus? Or was God all three, ye One? Unless all three were God, then you have to work out which of those three was God at that moment (modalism), or deny the Divinity of one or two of the Three, or deny the personal attributes or literal existance of one or two of the Three. You're in a pickle. This isn't mumbo-jumbo, just dealing with a text.

Sorry, but in each of the gospels it says that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus LIKE/AS a dove, not in the form of. Small but important point. Remember that up until this point Jesus has not commenced his ministry, it is not until he has received the authority from God, in the form of the Holy Spirit that he can forgive sin, heal etc.

Answering the other part of your question; God was in heaven and proclaiming that Jesus was his son that he was well pleased with (Matt 3, Mark 1, Luke 3 John 1). As mentioned earlier, the Holy Spirit has been covered. This leaves Jesus, God's son. A human who was in right standing with God and who subsequently became the first of the new creation and who now sits at God's right hand in his uncorruptable body, awaiting his return to Earth to inherit his kingdom and rule with the authority of God.

 

[gort]

Yes only God has the power to forgive sin. Problem is that you overlook the filling of Jesus with the Holy Spirit (and granting of the authority of God at this point) when he was baptised. The Holy Spirit being the manifestation of God's power and character. From this point Jesus began his ministry, before this he was another man living in Israel.



No God is not the Holy Spirit but it is the manifestation of His power and characteristics. The attributes of the Holy Spirit are those of God. Remember that no one has seen God Himself and that sin and God cannot co-exist. You know the scriptures.



Sorry, but in each of the gospels it says that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus LIKE/AS a dove, not in the form of. Small but important point. Remember that up until this point Jesus has not commenced his ministry, it is not until he has received the authority from God, in the form of the Holy Spirit that he can forgive sin, heal etc.

Answering the other part of your question; God was in heaven and proclaiming that Jesus was his son that he was well pleased with (Matt 3, Mark 1, Luke 3 John 1). As mentioned earlier, the Holy Spirit has been covered. This leaves Jesus, God's son. A human who was in right standing with God and who subsequently became the first of the new creation and who now sits at God's right hand in his uncorruptable body, awaiting his return to Earth to inherit his kingdom and rule with the authority of God.

Jesus, a human in right standing with God? Please explain.

 

[gort]

Originally Posted by Ichabod 2
Truth can be debated, and should be because God hides His deeper truth.

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to
search out a matter.

In reference to the trinity. The day someone shows me God is made up of three persons (chapter and verse please) is the day I believe in the trinity. Without three persons there is no trinity; God is simply one.

Here's 2 out of 3. You won't see the 3rd until you can see the first two. As you say, God does hide His deeper truth.

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

bump

Of course, this only shows there to be 2 persons of God and after reading some of your threads, I'm sure you'll reject it as scriptural proof of a trinity and rightly so because the HS is not in this text.

But, you'd have to concede there are 2 persons called God as this shows the Father speaking of the Son.

Can you concede this point of truth?

 

[Der Alte]

Here is a word game for you. "three persons". Show me that and you have solved the word game. If you can't find those two words togeather in God's Word there is no trinity. SO SIMPLE....

Here is a SIMPLE word game for you. Show me a verse which states that Jesus is a person? Show me a verse which states that anyone in scripture is a person? If you cannot find a verse that has the word "person" and any human being together in God''s word, you have no argument. SO SIMPLE!

As I said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are called or referred to as God, but they are distinct from each other. All three have distinct minds, wills, and selves.

 

[Ichabod 2]

Here is a SIMPLE word game for you. Show me a verse which states that Jesus is a person? Show me a verse which states that anyone in scripture is a person? If you cannot find a verse that has the word "person" and any human being together in God''s word, you have no argument. SO SIMPLE!

As I said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are called or referred to as God, but they are distinct from each other. All three have distinct minds, wills, and selves.

I never said Jesus was not a person; no word game is needed for this is a fact and demonstrated with his physical walk in the flesh; But He is not a person now; He is God. Besides people are persons; but to try to spin words to make God a person is where you miss the mark.

Jesus did only the will of the Father; so if His mind is so distinct as you proclaim then why is this so. But I have a problem is you are spinning and conniving what any way you can to make God as three persons; He is not; He is one.

God is a spirit and if God manifested Himself as flesh as in the case of Jesus; who had the same will of the Father as Scripture points out; there will was the same. The Holy Spirit here so we can learn the will of the Father but He is the very same God we all love and worship; He is not the second person or third peron of the of the trinity; nor is He another God as some believe.

Take the word Godhead is a religious term and does not come from the original language but was put there by bias religious men like yourself who will do anything to prove this false creed called the trinity. The word mistranslated Godhead simply means divinity; notice how KJV has mistranslated it.

Godhead….2304 theios (thi'-os);

from 2316; godlike (neuter as noun, divinity):

KJV-- divine, godhead.

2316 theos (theh'-os); of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:

KJV-- X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].