Are Trinitarians Christians?

Originally posted by edpobre


This means that God has NO beginning and NO ending. God is from eternity to eternity. In contrast, Jesus, a MAN, said that he proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42).

Ed

Click to expand...

Ok now answer this question. What is meant by everlasting in this verse?

Micah 5:2 " But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, <I>Though </I>you are little among the thousands of Judah, <I>Yet </I>out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth <I>are </I>from of old, From everlasting."

&nbsp;

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Posted by Kain
”Only a trinitarian would see that verse as two gods speaking.”

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.

I see you ignored the Jewish, as in non-Trinitarian, JPS and LXX translation of this verse which I posted. Did these Jewish translators translate this verse wrong? Especially the LXX translators 250 years BC. They certainly must have had a Trinitarian bias.
All those other verses you posted are totally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

When it supports your trinitarian view, the Jews become perfect translators. It's a common theme I see repeated from many.

Besides from that, I've already explained this verse, but you have rejected that explanation. I supported my view by showing other verses that show who is the true Redeemer, but you call that irrelevant. I too can play your game: Isa 44:6 is irrelevant. There. wasn't that fun?

Here is the word translated “his redeemer” &#1493;&#1490;&#1488;&#1500;&#1493;, in Isa 44:6. Can you locate this word? Can you identify the stem, the mood, the gender, or the case of this word? It is the word ga’al “redeemer” with the waw conjunction and the 3ms or third person masculine singular, pronominal suffix, waw &#1493; . The literal translation is “and redeemer of him” In order to be translated “thy” it would have to be written &#1493;&#1490;&#1488;&#1500;&#1498;

That is the point this verse very clearly identifies two distinct entities, One “the LORD, the King of Israel”, and two, “his Redeemer the LORD of hosts:

Click to expand...

JPS Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.
Who is Israel's Redeemer?

Here is the word translated “his redeemer” &#1493;&#1490;&#1488;&#1500;&#1493;, in Isa 44:6. Can you locate this word? Can you identify the stem, the mood, the gender, or the case of this word? It is the word ga’al “redeemer” with the waw conjunction and the 3ms or third person masculine singular, pronominal suffix, waw &#1493; . The literal translation is “and redeemer of him” In order to be translated “thy” it would have to be written &#1493;&#1490;&#1488;&#1500;&#1498;

That is the point this verse very clearly identifies two distinct entities, One “the LORD, the King of Israel”, and two, “his Redeemer the LORD of hosts:

Click to expand...

Yes, "and his redeemer". Who's redeemer? Israel's redeemer. That is supported elsewhere in Isaiah. But that's irrelevant, remember?

LXX 6 Thus saith God the King of Israel, and the God of hosts that delivered him; I am the first, and I am hereafter: beside me there is no God.

Click to expand...

The very verse defeats your argument. You say this indicates two distinct entities, yet the very next part of the verse "beside me there is no God."

Nice try.

”Given the context of the rest of Isaiah (and the rest of the Tanach), you would be hard pressed to convince any non-trinitarian that there are multiple presonalities being presented in that verse.”

I wouldn’t be too sure about that.
How A Rabbi Found Peace.[snip Rabbi tract]

Click to expand...

I would. If you search real hard, you can find 'trinitarians' among the Rabbis, but they are no longer Jewish since they accept Christ as their savior instead of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The bible is not an exact science. However, the trinitarians among the Jews have about the same treatment among the rest of Judaism as non-trinitarian Chrisitans have among the rest of Christianity. Especially considering, the testimony of Jews-for-Jesus (Christians disguised as Jews) converts doesn't sit will with Judeism.

A Christian quote? Hardly. The above is taken from the Zohar, an ancient book of Jewish mysticism. The Zohar is somewhat esoteric and most contemporary Jews don't study it, but there are other Jewish books that refer to God's plurality as well.[/I]”

Click to expand...

The Zohar isn't a canonized book of the Tanach. It you wish to consider one non-canonized books, they you also have to consider all the non-canonized books which will just make one big mess of things.

Side note: Find a trinity support quote from an actual Jewish Rabbi, one who is accepted in the Jewish community and not a Christian convert. That will add more credence to your view.

Originally posted by edpobre
Originallysted by cougan


Micah 5:2 Today's English Version: "The Lord says, "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times."

As Jesus said in John 8:42, he proceeded forth and came from God. Therefore, "his goings forth are from old, from everlasting" means that the ruler (Jesus) shall come from God, the everlasting.

Ed

&nbsp;

Click to expand...

You see had no problem in PS 90:2 saying that everlasting meant forever with no beging or end which was in reference to Jehovah. But, when it was used in Mic 5:2 you want to change how the verse reads because you see the dilema here where Jesus is refered to as everlasting just like Jehova is.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, <I>though </I>thou be little among the thousands of Judah, <I>yet </I>out of thee shall he come forth unto me <I>that is </I>to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth (origin)&nbsp;<I>have been </I>from of old (that which is before, aforetime), from everlasting.

So you see Jesus orgin is that which is before everything else and he is everlasting just as the father is.

Perhaps a proper rendering of the verse will help resolve the problem here.

Micah 5:2 “And you, O Beth'le·hem Eph'ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

The term "Indefinite" means what it suggests, unknown time period.&nbsp; Nothing here suggests that Jesus is Jehovah and has lived from the eternal past.&nbsp; It does however suggest he had a beggining.

I’d better post these before I get accused of using a biased translation. As you can see, many modern translations agree with the rendering of Mic 5:2

5:2 New Living Trans
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.

5:2 New Revised Standard
F15 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

5:2 Todays English Version
The Lord says, "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times."&nbsp;

5:2 New Century version
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are too small to be among the army groups from Judah, from you will come one who will rule Israel for me. He comes from very old times, from days long ago."

5:2 Young’s Litertal Trans
And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity.

5:2 GOD’S WORD Trans
You, Bethlehem Ephrathah, are too small to be included among Judah's cities. Yet, from you Israel's future ruler will come for me. His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.&nbsp;


&nbsp;

Originally posted by cougan
Ok now answer this question. What is meant by everlasting in this verse?

Micah 5:2 " But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, <I>Though </I>you are little among the thousands of Judah, <I>Yet </I>out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth <I>are </I>from of old, From everlasting."

&nbsp;

Click to expand...

*****************
Hi, P/N/B/ here:
Eternal is what that means! Immortal
Christ as man/God was a [Plan] to be brought foward that was Everlasting Gospel & Everlasting Covenant!
*************************

Originally posted by edpobre
Originally posted by LightBearer


The ONLY true God is the FATHER (John 17:3) and according to Jesus, there is ONLY ONE Father, He who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9).&nbsp;Thus, the statement "Jehovah God as Creator is called Father" is FALSE because it implies that there could be other Fathers (of Spirits) besides God. God alone is the Father of Spirits (Heb. 12:9). There is NO other&nbsp; Father besides God.



Not every so-called "spirit-begotten Christians" is a disciple of Christ and therefore adopted child of God.&nbsp;



Jesus was talking to his DISCIPLES in Mt. 6:9. Only CHILDREN of God have the right to call God "Abba Father" (Gal. 4:6). Not everyone who expresses faith with a hope of everlasting life has received ADOPTION as a CHILD of God.



This is FALSE. The last part of Isaiah 9:6 is a MISTRANSLATION. The Smith-Goodspeed Translation renders it thus: "...And his name will be called 'Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

Jesus was NEVER called FATHER by his disciples. Jesus himself called his DISCIPLES his BRETHREN (John 20:17). Jesus TAUGHT that there is ONLY ONE Father and it did NOT include himself.



Sure, but the Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was EVER called Father by his DISCIPLES or anyone else except in Isaiah 9:6 which is a MISTRANSLATION.



This is only an assumption. There is ONLY ONE "Father of Spirits" (Heb. 12:9) and that ONLY ONE Father is God. Thus, Jesus CANNOT be called "Eternal Father" because it would make it appear that there are TWO Fathers of Spirits.
&nbsp;


This does NOT make Jesus the "Eternal Father."



This statement is FALSE for two reasons:

1) Jesus did NOT ascend to heaven as a "spirit person." A spirit does NOT have flesh and bones like Jesus has (Luke 24:39). Thus, a spirit is INVISIBLE like God (John 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16).

Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people when he ascended to heaven (1 Cor. 15:6; Acts 1:11).).&nbsp; In fact, Jesus ate broiled fish AFTER his resurrection (Luke 24:41-43); and&nbsp;

2) Jesus did NOT ascend to heaven to "present the value of his sacrifice to Jehovah." He is in the presence of God as our High Priest (Heb. 4:14-15) and only MEDIATOR between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5).



The verse you quoted does NOT say that Jesus became the new Father of mankind, a replacement for Adam. What you are saying is only your own interpretation of the verse.



This statement that "Jesus, a perfect Father, uses the value of his sacrifice to bestow eternal life upon obedient humans" is FALSE. It does NOT have any Biblical basis. This is only your assumption or opinion.

Jesus does NOT bestow eternal life. Jesus himself is co-heir with other adopted children of God to God's promises&nbsp; (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:19; Gal. 4:7).



What you are saying is ABSURD. Just because sinners gain everlasting life through Jesus' death, you now call him "eternal Father" yet you say he is NOT "the Father."

What you are saying in effect is that there are TWO Fathers: one is the "eternal Father" of sinners who gain eternal life; and the other Father is "the Father" of CREATION.

But Jesus said there is ONLY ONE Father, he who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9). Who should we believe, you or Jesus?

Ed

Click to expand...

*******
Ed, slow down, your mind is set in concrete! Could you be wrong??
Read Rom. 4:17's LAST PART. Ask yourself if God can & didcall Christ His Son, 'even before He was'? All the verses that you take time to print fefer to the time of the PLAN of Salvation after its conception. In other words, Christ
is looking back as God/man!

Ed,

I really have to disagree with you on this..

1) Jesus did NOT ascend to heaven as a "spirit person." A spirit does NOT have flesh and bones like Jesus has (Luke 24:39). Thus, a spirit is INVISIBLE like God (John 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16).

Click to expand...

We have other examples of Spirits having flesh and bones --

Gen 32:24

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

Gen 32:29

And Jacob asked [him], and said, Tell [me], I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there

Gen 32:30

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved

Gen 19:1

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

Gen 19:3

And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat

Jos 5:13

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, [Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries?

Jos 5:14

And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

I would only claim that Jacob wrestled with God ( Christ ) in the form of a man - the others we can see were Angels in human form. Everything is possible with God - Including God manifesting&nbsp;Himself in human form as&nbsp;Christ.

Originally posted by Kain
When it supports your trinitarian view, the Jews become perfect translators. It's a common theme I see repeated from many.

Besides from that, I've already explained this verse, but you have rejected that explanation. I supported my view by showing other verses that show who is the true Redeemer, but you call that irrelevant. I too can play your game: Isa 44:6 is irrelevant. There. wasn't that fun?

Click to expand...

That was just too cute for words. You have ignored much of my post each time, specifically JPS and LXX and your little feelings are hurt because I won't jump thru hoops and address all your scripture citations.

The very verse defeats your argument. You say this indicates two distinct entities, yet the very next part of the verse "beside me there is no God."

Click to expand...

Every anti-Trinitarian in the world thinks that every musty, dusty, argument they resurrect completely destroys the Trinity argument. Get real! I believe in ONE God.

I would. If you search real hard, you can find 'trinitarians' among the Rabbis, but they are no longer Jewish since they accept Christ as their savior instead of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The bible is not an exact science. However, the trinitarians among the Jews have about the same treatment among the rest of Judaism as non-trinitarian Chrisitans have among the rest of Christianity. Especially considering, the testimony of Jews-for-Jesus (Christians disguised as Jews) converts doesn't sit will with Judeism.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant! The original challenge was that "Only a trinitarian would see that verse as two gods speaking." I will overlook the gross misrepresenation of Trinity in this comment. But at least one of the Rabbis I cited discovered the Trinity in the Hebrew scriptures, specifically Isaiah. He was orthodox, NOT, trinitarian, when it happened. I disproved your statement but you blew it off becasue since the Rabbi afterward believed in the Trinity you, speaking for God, decide that he is no longer a Jew.

The Zohar isn't a canonized book of the Tanach. It you wish to consider one non-canonized books, they you also have to consider all the non-canonized books which will just make one big mess of things.

Click to expand...

Not canonized? Irrelevant! My point was that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was first conceptualized within non-Trinitarian Judaism, before Christianity.

Side note: Find a trinity support quote from an actual Jewish Rabbi, one who is accepted in the Jewish community and not a Christian convert. That will add more credence to your view.

Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Just like you said as soon as a Rabbi accepts the Trinity, he is no longer accepted in the Jewish community. And I'm going to go right out here and find a Methodist or Baptist who teaches that Christians are required to observe all the Jewish feasts and festivals, Shavuot, Pesach, etc. Get real.

by Edpobre

The ONLY true God is the FATHER (John 17:3) and according to Jesus, there is ONLY ONE Father, He who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9). Thus, the statement "Jehovah God as Creator is called Father" is FALSE because it implies that there could be other Fathers (of Spirits) besides God. God alone is the Father of Spirits (Heb. 12:9). There is NO other Father besides God.

Click to expand...

The statement "Jehovah God as Creator is called Father" is correct and implies nothing more than it says. Jehovah is rightly called Father. What you think it implies is irrelevant.

By Edpobre

Not every so-called "spirit-begotten Christians" is a disciple of Christ and therefore adopted child of God.

Click to expand...

This is a contradition in terms. All Disciples of Christ are Christians and all Christians are Disciples of Christ. Please Ed, show me a scripture where this is not so.

By Edpobre

This is FALSE. The last part of Isaiah 9:6 is a MISTRANSLATION. The Smith-Goodspeed Translation renders it thus: "...And his name will be called 'Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

Click to expand...

So all other translations of this verse is wrong except Goodspeeds. I don’t think so. Why then don’t you just stick to Goodspeeds Translation for all your other verses if it’s so good.

By&nbsp;lightbearer&nbsp;
Also, anyone who has imitators and followers, or those who exhibit his qualities, is regarded as a father to them. (Mt 5:44, 45; Ro 4:11, 12) In this sense the Devil is spoken of as a father.—Joh 8:44; compare Ge 3:15.

Answer by Edpobre
"Sure, but the Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was EVER called Father by his DISCIPLES or anyone else except in Isaiah 9:6 which is a MISTRANSLATION.

Click to expand...

This too contradicts your first statement here that no one else is called father except "The Father". “the statement "Jehovah God as Creator is called Father" is FALSE because it implies that there could be other Fathers (of Spirits) besides God. God alone is the Father of Spirits (Heb. 12:9). There is NO other Father besides God

By Edpobre

This does NOT make Jesus the "Eternal Father."

Click to expand...

Oh yes it does.

By Edpobre

This statement that "Jesus, a perfect Father, uses the value of his sacrifice to bestow eternal life upon obedient humans" is FALSE. It does NOT have any Biblical basis. This is only your assumption or opinion.

Click to expand...

Romans 6:22-23 For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord".

On what basis does God give life everlasting except to those who come under the redeeming value of Christ’s sacrificial death through his shed blood?


1 Corinthians 15:44-45 “It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit”. Life giving to who?

By Edpobre

This statement is FALSE for two reasons:

1) Jesus did NOT ascend to heaven as a "spirit person." A spirit does NOT have flesh and bones like Jesus has (Luke 24:39). Thus, a spirit is INVISIBLE like God (John 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16).

Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people when he ascended to heaven (1 Cor. 15:6; Acts 1:11).). In fact, Jesus ate broiled fish AFTER his resurrection (Luke 24:41-43); and

Click to expand...

Does Jesus have his fleshly body in heaven?
1 Cor. 15:42-50, RS: “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. . . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. . . . Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam [Jesus Christ, who was a perfect human as Adam had been at the start] became a life-giving spirit. . . . I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (Italics added.)

1 Pet. 3:18, RS: “Christ also died for sins once for all, . . . being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit [“in the spirit,” NE, AT, JB, Dy].”

Illustration: If a man pays a debt for a friend but then promptly takes back the payment, obviously the debt continues. Likewise, if, when he was resurrected, Jesus had taken back his human body of flesh and blood, which had been given in sacrifice to pay the ransom price, what effect would that have had on the provision he was making to relieve faithful persons of the debt of sin?

It is true that Jesus appeared in physical form to his disciples after his resurrection. But on certain occasions, why did they not at first recognize him? (Luke 24:15-32; John 20:14-16) On one occasion, for the benefit of Thomas, Jesus appeared with the physical evidence of nail prints in his hands and a spear wound in his side. But how was it possible on that occasion for him suddenly to appear in their midst even though the doors were locked? (John 20:26, 27) Jesus evidently materialized bodies on these occasions, as angels had done in the past when appearing to humans. Disposing of Jesus’ physical body at the time of his resurrection presented no problem for God. Interestingly, although the physical body was not left by God in the tomb (evidently to strengthen the conviction of the disciples that Jesus had actually been raised), the linen cloths in which it had been wrapped were left there; yet, the resurrected Jesus always appeared fully clothed.—John 20:6, 7.

By Edpobre

2) Jesus did NOT ascend to heaven to "present the value of his sacrifice to Jehovah." He is in the presence of God as our High Priest (Heb. 4:14-15) and only MEDIATOR between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5).

Click to expand...

Hebrews 9:11-12 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].

This blood symbolized his perfect human life which he sacrificed on mans behalf.

edpobre, you wrote:

With due respects, your belief is FALSE.&nbsp; The DISCIPLES&nbsp; of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). And a DISCIPLE of Christ is one who BELIEVES in Christ and ABIDES in his word or teaching (John 8:31).

Look, you have no authority to determine ANYTHING about my beliefs or anyone else's beliefs.&nbsp; You only have authority over your beliefs, period.

The Acts and John cites you have provided are irrelevent to my post.

Hello everyone! First please pardon my interuption as I have not read all 26 pages nor do I plan to. I find this NONSENSE!!! TRINITARIANS VS. NONTRINITARIANS....ARE WE ARE THEY CHRISTAINS?

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF GOD?

DO YOU BELIEVE GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO DIE ON THE CROSS?

DO YOU ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR?

EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST IS BORN OF GOD AND EVERYONE WHO LOVES THE FATHER LOVES HIS SON AS WELL.&nbsp;

I&nbsp;AM A NONTRINITARIAN NOT AN ANTITRINITARIAN....LOVE IS IMPORTANT AND THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING LACKS THE LOVE JESUS HAD FOR US.

1 JOHN 4 LET US LOVE ONE ANOTHER FOR LOVE COMES FROM&nbsp;GOD. EVERYONE WHO LOVES HAS BEEN BORN OF GOD AND KNOWS GOD. WHOEVER DOES NOT LOVE DOES NOT KNOW GOD BECAUSE GOD IS LOVE.&nbsp; WE&nbsp;KNOW THAT WE LIVE IN HIM AND HE IN US BECAUSE HE HAS GIVEN US HIS SPIRIT.

IF YOU READ YOUR BIBLE IT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT BEHIND TRINITY AND WHY THEY BELIEVE THE WAY THEY DO I DON'T CARE FOR THE CEED BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT HAS FLAWS BUT I WON'T DARE SAY SOMEONE ISN'T A CHRISTIAN JUST BECAUSE THEY DO BELIEVE NOR SHOULD ANYONE SAY I'M NOT BECAUSE I DON'T ACCEPT IT.

WHERE IS THE LOVE....WHERE IS GOD? I WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS THREAD BY ANOTHER ON THE THREAD AGAINST NON-TRINITARIANS...IT ERKS ME TO SEE CHRISTIANS BEHAVING THIS WAY....I AM A CHRISTIAN AND JUST SO HAPPEN NOT TO ACCEPT THE CREED AS 100% RIGHT. JESUS GOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE ONE IN PURPOSE BUT NOT ONE IN BEING. JESUS ASKS THAT WE BECOME ONE AS HE AND HIS FATHER ARE ONE...GOD PLACED JESUS UP TO HIS STANDING...THE HOLY SPIRIT I BELIEVE IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD.&nbsp; MOST NON-TRINITARIANS HAVE BIBLICAL REASONING FOR BELIEVING AS THEY DO AND THE SAME FOR SOME TRINITARIANS....WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG I'LL LET GOD DECIDE....AS FAR AS I KNOW HE ONLY ASKED FOR OUR LOVE NOT OUR FIGURING HIS DEMINSIONS&nbsp;OUT COMPLETELY. GOD IS EVERYWHERE.

LOVE AND GOD BLESS

&nbsp;

Hi forum, P/N/B/ here:
Being an old 'coot' myself, 'i' kinda like the large print!
But to be truthful as one must be, the post reminded me of 1 Sam. 15:23?
Perhaps not to the point of rebellion, but surely the part that says that.. "[stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.]" Or one might try Rev. 3:16-17?---P/N/B/
*****

Originally posted by Messenger
Hello everyone! First please pardon my interuption as I have not read all 26 pages nor do I plan to. I find this NONSENSE!!! TRINITARIANS VS. NONTRINITARIANS....ARE WE ARE THEY CHRISTAINS?

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF GOD?

DO YOU BELIEVE GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO DIE ON THE CROSS?

DO YOU ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR?

EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST IS BORN OF GOD AND EVERYONE WHO LOVES THE FATHER LOVES HIS SON AS WELL.&nbsp;

I&nbsp;AM A NONTRINITARIAN NOT AN ANTITRINITARIAN....LOVE IS IMPORTANT AND THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING LACKS THE LOVE JESUS HAD FOR US.

1 JOHN 4 LET US LOVE ONE ANOTHER FOR LOVE COMES FROM&nbsp;GOD. EVERYONE WHO LOVES HAS BEEN BORN OF GOD AND KNOWS GOD. WHOEVER DOES NOT LOVE DOES NOT KNOW GOD BECAUSE GOD IS LOVE.&nbsp; WE&nbsp;KNOW THAT WE LIVE IN HIM AND HE IN US BECAUSE HE HAS GIVEN US HIS SPIRIT.

IF YOU READ YOUR BIBLE IT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT BEHIND TRINITY AND WHY THEY BELIEVE THE WAY THEY DO I DON'T CARE FOR THE CEED BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT HAS FLAWS BUT I WON'T DARE SAY SOMEONE ISN'T A CHRISTIAN JUST BECAUSE THEY DO BELIEVE NOR SHOULD ANYONE SAY I'M NOT BECAUSE I DON'T ACCEPT IT.

WHERE IS THE LOVE....WHERE IS GOD? I WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS THREAD BY ANOTHER ON THE THREAD AGAINST NON-TRINITARIANS...IT ERKS ME TO SEE CHRISTIANS BEHAVING THIS WAY....I AM A CHRISTIAN AND JUST SO HAPPEN NOT TO ACCEPT THE CREED AS 100% RIGHT. JESUS GOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE ONE IN PURPOSE BUT NOT ONE IN BEING. JESUS ASKS THAT WE BECOME ONE AS HE AND HIS FATHER ARE ONE...GOD PLACED JESUS UP TO HIS STANDING...THE HOLY SPIRIT I BELIEVE IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD.&nbsp; MOST NON-TRINITARIANS HAVE BIBLICAL REASONING FOR BELIEVING AS THEY DO AND THE SAME FOR SOME TRINITARIANS....WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG I'LL LET GOD DECIDE....AS FAR AS I KNOW HE ONLY ASKED FOR OUR LOVE NOT OUR FIGURING HIS DEMINSIONS&nbsp;OUT COMPLETELY. GOD IS EVERYWHERE.

LOVE AND GOD BLESS

&nbsp;

Click to expand...

Originally posted by OldShepherd
That was just too cute for words. You have ignored much of my post each time, specifically JPS and LXX and your little feelings are hurt because I won't jump thru hoops and address all your scripture citations.

Click to expand...

Actually, I explained your posts each time, it is you who ignored much of the scripture I used to support my view... you dumped all that out in favor of one verse that will support your view if you interpret it a special way.

Every anti-Trinitarian in the world thinks that every musty, dusty, argument they resurrect completely destroys the Trinity argument. Get real! I believe in ONE God.

Click to expand...

One God. Good. Now dump the trinity concept and you'll really have ONE God.

Irrelevant! The original challenge was that "Only a trinitarian would see that verse as two gods speaking." I will overlook the gross misrepresenation of Trinity in this comment. But at least one of the Rabbis I cited discovered the Trinity in the Hebrew scriptures, specifically Isaiah. He was orthodox, NOT, trinitarian, when it happened. I disproved your statement but you blew it off becasue since the Rabbi afterward believed in the Trinity you, speaking for God, decide that he is no longer a Jew.

Click to expand...

I'll accept the words of a Jew-for-Jesus for what they are. Apart from this, I know nothing about this history of this 'rabbi' except what he tells about himself. But that's okay I suppose. You win this one. I'll have to admit that even the Christians were non-trinitarian before many of them became so due to political pressure and imperial mandate. It's not like they had a choice, all those who resisted the heresy were purged.

Not canonized? Irrelevant! My point was that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was first conceptualized within non-Trinitarian Judaism, before Christianity.

Click to expand...

Only if such interpretations are adopted to press a trinitarian view. Here is your Shema 'proof' refuted in full.
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html

Yeah, right. Just like you said as soon as a Rabbi accepts the Trinity, he is no longer accepted in the Jewish community. And I'm going to go right out here and find a Methodist or Baptist who teaches that Christians are required to observe all the Jewish feasts and festivals, Shavuot, Pesach, etc. Get real.

Click to expand...

Don't get all too excited. The claim has been made that non-trinitarian Christians aren't really Christian (I don't know if you were personally involved in that). This is simply a demonstration of what it looks like to extend that logic by applying it to trinitarian Jews.

Definition of a Christian is a foot step follower of Jesus. In other words....a Christian imitates Jesus in spiritual matters. Who did Jesus pray to and worship.......his heavenly Father or a trinity? It is more then clear....Jesus was not a trinitarian and so neither are his followers.