Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Doveaman · Dec 1, 2015

Butch5 said:
Can you give you definition of the Trinity?

Here is a controversial definition:

The Trinity is the Father as an individual person, and the Son as an individual person, and the Holy Spirit as a union of Father and Son.

Trinity: Father (individual person), Son (individual person), Holy Spirit (union of Father and Son).

Imagican · Dec 1, 2015

Well, I THOUGHT I was through................

I HAVE offered alternative understanding. You simply chose to disregard it as NOT being what you believe.

The Word IS: THE word of God. It is the manner in which HE: GOD spoke the 'light' into existence IN THE BEGINNING. AFTER 'the beginning, as in SINCE the beginning, we KNOW that Christ was instrumental in 'creation'.

God's Word as in God's Spirit IS God. And God is THE Father. God is OUR God and THE God of Jesus Christ as well. How would YOU discern the meaning behind GOD, not THE FATHER, being THE God of Christ as well as OUR God? Not Christ BEING God, but Christ HAVING the SAME God as OURSELVES?

You see, it's not from my LACK of offering an explanation of my beliefs, it's merely a matter of you rejecting them. Maybe you missed the posts where I PLAINLY stated that it is MY belief that when God said, "Let there be LIGHT". This was the instant that Christ was 'begotten'. For I do NOT believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as ONE God. I believe that there is ONLY ONE true God and that is the Father of Jesus Christ: His SON.

I don't NEED to define Godhead any further than what is offered in scripture. In FACT, it is my understanding that we have been instructed NOT to even THINK about Godhead in our OWN terms. Nor are we to construct images or likenesses of it. But ONLY to accept that it exists as offered. Father and Son. And in all instances of TRUE understanding, according to EVERY OFFERING in the entire Bible, A Father BEGETS a Son. That means that a son comes FROM a Father. They are not equal nor are they co eternal. Can't be if one comes FROM another.

Only in 'trinity' do we see men creating their OWN definitions for words in an attempt to alter the obvious. We would NEVER have been offered the terms 'father' or 'son' if they had NO meaning according to the very definitions of the words. God is not a prankster offering RIDDLES for us to explore. If He has been revealed, it is not through such means. And if He has TRULY been revealed, He cannot REMAIN a mystery to those whom He has revealed Himself. Christ's ULTIMATE desire is that WE should ONE with God as HE is one with GOD. That is impossible if He remains a MYSTERY.

As Paul offered when he encountered the temple dedicated to the UNKNOWN God. "I feel that you people are TOO superstitious. Let me introduce you to the God that CAN be KNOWN".

But hey, I'm glad that you at least found my words 'interesting'.

Blessings,

MEC

Wgw · Dec 1, 2015

Imagican said:
Well, I THOUGHT I was through................

I HAVE offered alternative understanding. You simply chose to disregard it as NOT being what you believe.

This thread is the first I have seen of any of it; I think the very categorical responses I have offered to your posts show that I would not simply disregard a point you have made and then move on.

The Word IS: THE word of God. It is the manner in which HE: GOD spoke the 'light' into existence IN THE BEGINNING. AFTER 'the beginning, as in SINCE the beginning, we KNOW that Christ was instrumental in 'creation'.

So herein you indicate the Word is Christ, based on your nominal reference to John 1:1 and John 1:3.

God's Word as in God's Spirit IS God.

And here you unwittingly confuse our Lord with the Spirit in an attempt to characterize his relationship woth the Godhead.

And God is THE Father.

And here, after just quoting John 1:1, you misuse a true statement in an exclusionary manner which rejects "and the Word was God."

God is OUR God and THE God of Jesus Christ as well.

Is the Word God, or merely a God as the false New World Translation claims?

How would YOU discern the meaning behind GOD, not THE FATHER, being THE God of Christ as well as OUR God? Not Christ BEING God, but Christ HAVING the SAME God as OURSELVES?

How I discern this is immaterial to the question of how you interpret, and indeed presume to suggest we interpret, John 1:1-14.

You see, it's not from my LACK of offering an explanation of my beliefs, it's merely a matter of you rejecting them. Maybe you missed the posts where I PLAINLY stated that it is MY belief that when God said, "Let there be LIGHT". This was the instant that Christ was 'begotten'. For I do NOT believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as ONE God. I believe that there is ONLY ONE true God and that is the Father of Jesus Christ: His SON.

You are welcome to believe that, but you have not reconciled that position with John 1:1 "and the Word was God."

I don't NEED to define Godhead any further than what is offered in scripture. In FACT, it is my understanding that we have been instructed NOT to even THINK about Godhead in our OWN terms. Nor are we to construct images or likenesses of it. But ONLY to accept that it exists as offered.

Accepting it as offered requires acceding to the ontological and essential divinity of our Lord as God, as per John 1:1.

Father and Son.

And indeed the Holy Spirit, as per Matthew 28:19, is also God.

And in all instances of TRUE understanding, according to EVERY OFFERING in the entire Bible, A Father BEGETS a Son. That means that a son comes FROM a Father.

This is true. And there is a world of difference between the act of begetting, and the act of creation, Our Lord is begotten, not made; he is not a creature.

They are not equal nor are they co eternal. Can't be if one comes FROM another.

More fallacious anthropomorphology.

Only in 'trinity' do we see men creating their OWN definitions for words in an attempt to alter the obvious.

Once again you continue this canard, in willful rejection of John 1:1-14, and using the perjorative language @Albion amd myself asked you to refrain from using.

We would NEVER have been offered the terms 'father' or 'son' if they had NO meaning according to the very definitions of the words.

I agree. There is no sense in which a som begotten of his father can be a creature of his father. This represents still another strawman attack against Trinitarians; once again, you would rather argue against what we do not believe, rather than what we do believe.

God is not a prankster offering RIDDLES for us to explore. If He has been revealed, it is not through such means.

Such means as what? John 1:1-14? I think the very idea that Trinitarians believe in, or would believe in, a prankster deity, is offensive.

And if He has TRULY been revealed, He cannot REMAIN a mystery to those whom He has revealed Himself. Christ's ULTIMATE desire is that WE should ONE with God as HE is one with GOD. That is impossible if He remains a MYSTERY.

Hence the Incarnation of the Word.

As Paul offered when he encountered the temple dedicated to the UNKNOWN God. "I feel that you people are TOO superstitious. Let me introduce you to the God that CAN be KNOWN".

By which he of course meant God incarnate: our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, who is knowable according to his person owing to His incarnation.

In summary, in this post you have not offered an alternate explanation of John 1:1-14, nor anything close to the standard of a literal exegesis I have repeatedly insisted on. Rather, you responded solely to the first two parts of John 1:1, contradicted yourself on John 1:1-14, and basically ignored John 1:2 and John 1:4-13.

You then proceded with your customary selection of fallacious red herrings, strawmen, special pleading and appeals to ignorance, in order to camoflauge the entirely partial and insubstantial non-literal exegesis offered.

What is more, you have not withdrawn the exceedingly unpleasant comments made in your previous post about Trinitarian Christians.

Imagican · Dec 1, 2015

After re reading your post, I feel compelled to offer this:

I would be willing to BET that when Paul offered his words concerning 'putting away childish things' and instead, "grow up", there were most likely many that TOOK OFFENSE to his words as well.

While the discussion was 'trinity', my remark was directed at the 'churches' that seem to perpetuate the exact thing Paul was confronting. Instead of growing up INTO Christ, they seemed to prefer reintroduction over and over instead. Like a child that once tastes candy and would eat nothing BUT if allowed, so too do many of the 'churches' seem to prefer the 'warm fuzzy feeling' that they FIRST received than GROWING UP from there. Preferring their OWN 'self edification' to the sharing that one is capable of after GROWING beyond that point, in Christ.

And let me offer this: all those that you mention, you know, pious TRUE followers, I wasn't referring to them and I think you OUGHT to have known this. You certainly took much liberty in how you 'read into' my offering. I stated to whom I was referring so there should have been no such misunderstanding. I hope if there was, this clears it up.

Blessings,

MEC

Albion · Dec 1, 2015

It would be interesting to learn where Doveaman got that very unorthodox slant on the nature of the Trinity. I don't recall ever having encountered it before, but for it to be called "controversial" I would assume that it's been debated somewhere other than here.

Imagican · Dec 1, 2015

Wow. Guess I REALLY wasn't through...............

When YOU speak, it is YOUR word that I HEAR. The ideas, messages, whatever you choose to convey, I recognize THROUGH your 'word'. It is NOT 'separate' FROM you, it, in essence, IS YOU or the YOU I know through what you SAY: the words you OFFER me: YOUR WORD. When you swear or offer alliegiance, you do so BY your word. It IS your word that you ARE so far as revealing yourself to others. Without it, no one would KNOW you.

This is what I meant by God's word is God's Word. God's word IS GOD. It, so far as WE are concerned, only makes it possible for us to KNOW OF God or His will. We know it through HIS WORD. What He has shared with others to share with US.

Moses was 'given God's Word'. Noah was GIVEN God's Word. Adam and Eve were GIVEN God's Word.

Christ was SENT to DELIVER God's Word. He says so. He STATES that the words He offered were NOT HIS OWN. If He were GOD, then they WOULD have been HIS OWN WORDS. So the obviousness is that Christ was REPRESENTATIVE of the Word of God. And it's not unusual for such words to be offered. We name groups of people that follow the words of individuals BY that persons very name. You know, like using the word Orwellian, to show a similarity to the themes of his works. Or even American to describe those that LIVE in America. So too can we use the word 'Word' to describe that which Christ was GIVEN to deliver.

God's Word IS God. That part of Him that He has revealed to us. And through MANY 'different messengers'. Moses delivered GOD'S WORD to his people. And even HE stated that 'another' would one day come who would be GREATER than himself. He didn't offer that ONE day, God will visit us 'in the flesh'. He simply stated one 'greater than he'.

So, like an ambassador represents a LEADER, so too did Christ represent His Father: GOD. In essence of importance, He was certainly able to use the title 'Word'. But ONLY so far as being 'representative' of that very Word. No different than a representative of America being referred to as AMERICAN. It's OBVIOUS that a person is NOT a concept or country. But one representative could certainly be referred to in such a manner without that person BEING America.

Blessings,

MEC

Wgw · Dec 1, 2015

Albion said:
It would be interesting to learn where Doveaman got that very unorthodox slant on the nature of the Trinity. I don't recall ever having encountered it before, but for it to be called "controversial" I would assume that it's been debated somewhere other than here.

Indeed, it's a bit pneumatomachian in my opinion to describe the Holy Spirit as a union of father and son. Indeed the mere possibility of that kind of idea cropping up I suspect is a major reason why St. Photius objected so vehemently to the filioque.

Der Alte · Dec 1, 2015

Albion said:
Do you not understand that a development which occurred in the history of the Papacy does not mean that this is when the Papacy originated??

If the Roman Pope had all the authority listed in the Dictatus Papae, before 1075, there would have been no need for Ferdinand/Gregory VII to write them out and send them to all the churches. If the papal authority, listed in the Dictatus Papae, existed prior to 1075 there should be a body of writing showing church wide actions, decrees, etc. Where is that record? Do you know of any record showing the Roman Pope exercising authority over churches, other than those in Rome, in Israel, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Assyria, etc. prior to 1075? Prior to 1075 all presiding Bishops used the title Pope. In 1075 Gregory VII reserved that title to himself alone.

Albion · Dec 1, 2015

Der Alter said:
If the Roman Pope had all the authority listed in the Dictatus Papae, before 1075, there would have been no need for Ferdinand/Gregory VII to write them out and send them to all the churches.

But that isn't the point. You started us off with a different proposition, and it was that one which I commented on.

See post #406 if you're in doubt about what that was all about.

Wgw · Dec 1, 2015

Imagican said:
After re reading your post, I feel compelled to offer this:

I would be willing to BET that when Paul offered his words concerning 'putting away childish things' and instead, "grow up", there were most likely many that TOOK OFFENSE to his words as well.

While the discussion was 'trinity', my remark was directed at the 'churches' that seem to perpetuate the exact thing Paul was confronting. Instead of growing up INTO Christ, they seemed to prefer reintroduction over and over instead. Like a child that once tastes candy and would eat nothing BUT if allowed, so too do many of the 'churches' seem to prefer the 'warm fuzzy feeling' that they FIRST received than GROWING UP from there. Preferring their OWN 'self edification' to the sharing that one is capable of after GROWING beyond that point, in Christ.

Using the example of St. Paul to criticize Trinitarians as being "childish" is one of the more personally abusive uses of eisegesis I have seen thus far. Let us take a look at what St. Paul actually wrote:

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Now - would you mind telling me how calling Trinitarians childish is possibly charitable? St. Paul clearly is not referring to a third party in verse 11, but to himself. He is not referring to the Corinthian church as childish, but rather, remarking on the concept of spiritual progress in his own life as an example.

And let me offer this: all those that you mention, you know, pious TRUE followers, I wasn't referring to them and I think you OUGHT to have known this. You certainly took much liberty in how you 'read into' my offering. I stated to whom I was referring so there should have been no such misunderstanding. I hope if there was, this clears it up.

On the contrary, you clearly implied the remark was directed against Trinitarians in a very general way; there was no explicit assignment of it to a given party. In fact, even here, you do not state to whom you were referring.

Lastly one might remark that the prhase "pious TRUE followers" without further definition gives you rather a lot of wiggle-room. Is a Roman Catholic a true follower? A Jehovah's Witness? St. Athanasius? Arius? Me?

Wgw · Dec 1, 2015

Imagican said:
Wow. Guess I REALLY wasn't through...............

When YOU speak, it is YOUR word that I HEAR. The ideas, messages, whatever you choose to convey, I recognize THROUGH your 'word'. It is NOT 'separate' FROM you, it, in essence, IS YOU or the YOU I know through what you SAY: the words you OFFER me: YOUR WORD. When you swear or offer alliegiance, you do so BY your word. It IS your word that you ARE so far as revealing yourself to others. Without it, no one would KNOW you.

This is what I meant by God's word is God's Word. God's word IS GOD. It, so far as WE are concerned, only makes it possible for us to KNOW OF God or His will. We know it through HIS WORD. What He has shared with others to share with US.

Moses was 'given God's Word'. Noah was GIVEN God's Word. Adam and Eve were GIVEN God's Word.

Christ was SENT to DELIVER God's Word. He says so. He STATES that the words He offered were NOT HIS OWN. If He were GOD, then they WOULD have been HIS OWN WORDS. So the obviousness is that Christ was REPRESENTATIVE of the Word of God. And it's not unusual for such words to be offered. We name groups of people that follow the words of individuals BY that persons very name. You know, like using the word Orwellian, to show a similarity to the themes of his works. Or even American to describe those that LIVE in America. So too can we use the word 'Word' to describe that which Christ was GIVEN to deliver.

God's Word IS God. That part of Him that He has revealed to us. And through MANY 'different messengers'. Moses delivered GOD'S WORD to his people. And even HE stated that 'another' would one day come who would be GREATER than himself. He didn't offer that ONE day, God will visit us 'in the flesh'. He simply stated one 'greater than he'.

So, like an ambassador represents a LEADER, so too did Christ represent His Father: GOD. In essence of importance, He was certainly able to use the title 'Word'. But ONLY so far as being 'representative' of that very Word. No different than a representative of America being referred to as AMERICAN. It's OBVIOUS that a person is NOT a concept or country. But one representative could certainly be referred to in such a manner without that person BEING America.

Blessings,

MEC

John 1:1-14 clearly states that the Word became incarnate, John 1:1 clearly states that the Word is God, John 1:3 clearly states that by the word, all things were made.

Therefore, you cannot say that Jesus Christ was not the Word. You cannot say that he was merely given the Word in the manner of Moses or Abraham or Noah. You also cNnot say that He was not God.

John 1:1 doesn't say that Jesus Christ was a representative of the Word.

John 1:14 doesn't say that Jesus Christ, having received the Word but not ontologically being the Word, became incarnate. Nor does it say a mere verbal utterance became Incarnate.

John 1:3 for that matter does not say that Jesus Christ created all things, except Himself.

Thus, your non-literal interpretation of John 1:1-14 is self contradictory and self-refuting. My point, made in the OP, stands.

Der Alte · Dec 1, 2015

Albion said:
But that isn't the point. You started us off with a different proposition, and it was that one which I commented on.

See post #406 if you're in doubt about what that was all about.

I did not start off with a different proposition. I posted a link which did not fully support my assertion. My point remains the same there was no RCC, in Rome, with a Pope at its head until 1075.

Berean777 · Dec 1, 2015

Doveaman said:
Here is a controversial definition:

The Trinity is the Father as an individual person, and the Son as an individual person, and the Holy Spirit as a union of Father and Son.

Trinity: Father (individual person), Son (individual person), Holy Spirit (union of Father and Son).

The misunderstanding is that many think that God is three persons correlated to three separate beings.

God is three persons but one infinite being.

One substance who God is related to being/nature like human beings are many, yet God being is one.

Why God is three personailites has already been explained and if you require it to be repeated, then I will.

How God is three personalities is frankly non of our business and it will remain this way.

cgaviria · Dec 1, 2015

Doveaman said:
*Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.* -- (John 3:6).

My human flesh came forth from my fleshly parents on earth, but my human spirit came forth from my spiritual Father in heaven. My flesh is from the earth, but my spirit is from heaven, and it will return to heaven after I die.

*The LORD God formed man (flesh) from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit), and man became a living soul.* -- (Gen 2:7).

*The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.* -- (Eccl 12:7).

Jesus' human flesh was brought forth through His human mother, but His divine Spirit was brought forth through His divine Father.

His human flesh was created, but His divine Spirit was incarnated. His divine Spirit always existed and was temporarily embodied within a mortal human form.

The only thing that was original about Jesus' nature was His mortal human form, but His divine Spirit always existed eternally.

*For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.* -- (1 Cor 10:3-4).

Jesus Christ is the God who delivered and accompanied the Israelites on their journey from Egypt to Canaan.

Its just not true. By spirit you are implying that it is the conscious part of you, and it isnt. The spirit is the BREATH that GIVES YOU CONSCIOUSNESS. Hence why we have this scripture,

And God shaped the man, [*2*dust *1*taking] from the earth. And he breathed into his face breath of life, and [*2*became *1*man] a [*2*soul *1*living]. (Genesis 2:7 [ABP])

Man became a LIVING SOUL as a CONSEQUENCE OF GOD BREATHING IN HIM. The LIVING SOUL is where your CONSCIOUSNESS IS, and WHILE YOU STILL HAVE THIS BREATH OF LIFE, YOU WILL REMAIN CONSCIOUS.

If IN fact YOUR CONSCIOUS goes up to heaven as you say, then how is it in this scripture it says,

Who is the man who shall live and not see death? Shall he rescue his own soul from out of the hand of Hades? PAUSE. (Psalms 89:48 [ABP])

Its clearly stating YOUR SOUL goes to Hades. The SPIRIT/BREATH goes BACK TO GOD means that YOU NO LONGER HAVE THIS BREATH TO KEEP YOU ALIVE, AND THUS THE BREATH GOES BACK. Its like you inflating a balloon, when its full of air, the balloon is full and around, but as soon as you empty it out or pop it, the air escapes. The same with the body, AS IT HAS THIS BREATH/SPIRIT, it REMAINS ALIVE, and WHEN THIS BREATH LEAVES IT, IT DIES. Your SOUL is then COLLECTED IN HADES.

Doveaman · Dec 2, 2015

cgaviria said:
Its just not true. By spirit you are implying that it is the conscious part of you, and it isnt.

That is not what I am implying.

The spirit is the BREATH that GIVES YOU CONSCIOUSNESS.

I agree.

If IN fact YOUR CONSCIOUS goes up to heaven as you say

But that is not what I said.

I said your spirit returns to God, not your consciousness.

However, the spirit is not dead when it returns to God. Only the body is dead.

Only Jesus' human body died. His divine Spirit did not die. Crucifixion killed His body, but it did not kill His Spirit.

Doveaman · Dec 3, 2015

Albion said:
It would be interesting to learn where Doveaman got that very unorthodox slant on the nature of the Trinity.

We do know from Scripture that the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. But we also know from Scripture that the Father and Son are both Spirit and they are both Holy. Therefore, the Father and Son are both Holy Spirit.

Man is corrupt flesh. God is Holy Spirit.

It's not complicated.

I don't recall ever having encountered it before, but for it to be called "controversial" I would assume that it's been debated somewhere other than here.

If it is unorthodox then it is controversial, or at least has the potential to be controversial.

If the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then why is the Holy Spirit not Jesus’ Father?

Why did Jesus refer to another person in the Godhead as His Father instead of the Holy Spirit who conceived him?

cgaviria · Dec 3, 2015

Doveaman said:
That is not what I am implying.
I agree.
But that is not what I said.

I said your spirit returns to God, not your consciousness.

However, the spirit is not dead when it returns to God. Only the body is dead.

Only Jesus' human body died. His divine Spirit did not die. Crucifixion killed His body, but it did not kill His Spirit.

The spirit isn't ANYTHING TO YOU once it leaves you. YOU DIE WHEN THIS BREATH LEAVES YOU. ITS NOT A "THING" THAT IS IMMORTAL like you are suggesting. The spirit/breath is like you life support, once it is unplugged you die. The thing that MAKES YOU YOU IS YOUR SOUL. That is the COMPONENT OF YOU THAT IS COLLECTED IN HADES WHEN YOU DIE.

YOU ARE IN FACT ONLY BODY AND SOUL, AND THEN GOD BREATHES HIS BREATH IN YOU TO GIVE YOU LIFE. BUT ONCE THAT BREATH LEAVES, YOU BODY DECAYS, AND YOUR SOUL IS COLLECTED IN HADES AND REMAINS IN A SLEEP STATE UNTIL IT IS RAISED UP AND PUT INTO A NEW BODY IN THE RESURRECTION.

Wgw · Dec 3, 2015

Doveaman said:
We do know from Scripture that the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. But we also know from Scripture that the Father and Son are both Spirit and they are both Holy. Therefore, the Father and Son are both Holy Spirit.

Man is corrupt flesh. God is Holy Spirit.

It's not complicated.
If it is unorthodox then it is controversial, or at least has the potential to be controversial.

If the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then why is the Holy Spirit not Jesus’ Father?

Why did Jesus refer to another person in the Godhead as His Father instead of the Holy Spirit who conceived him?

Thus, pneumatomachianism; the unscriptural denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

You also confuse the conception of the incarnate Lord with his eternal generation by the Father; the Lord became incarnate through being conceived of the Holy Spirit, but this does not make him a son of the Holy Spirit, for He is eternally the Son of the Father according to His very divinity.

cgaviria said:
The spirit isn't ANYTHING TO YOU once it leaves you. YOU DIE WHEN THIS BREATH LEAVES YOU. ITS NOT A "THING" THAT IS IMMORTAL like you are suggesting. The spirit/breath is like you life support, once it is unplugged you die. The thing that MAKES YOU YOU IS YOUR SOUL. That is the COMPONENT OF YOU THAT IS COLLECTED IN HADES WHEN YOU DIE.

YOU ARE IN FACT ONLY BODY AND SOUL, AND THEN GOD BREATHES HIS BREATH IN YOU TO GIVE YOU LIFE. BUT ONCE THAT BREATH LEAVES, YOU BODY DECAYS, AND YOUR SOUL IS COLLECTED IN HADES AND REMAINS IN A SLEEP STATE UNTIL IT IS RAISED UP AND PUT INTO A NEW BODY IN THE RESURRECTION.

It is regrettable you feel the need to capitalize the entire content of your posts. It is neither endearing, nor does it make your argument more compelling.

Berean777 · Dec 3, 2015

Wgw said:
Thus, pneumatomachianism; the unscriptural denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

You also confuse the conception of the incarnate Lord with his eternal generation by the Father; the Lord became incarnate through being conceived of the Holy Spirit, but this does not make him a son of the Holy Spirit, for He is eternally the Son of the Father according to His very divinity.

It is regrettable you feel the need to capitalize the entire content of your posts. It is neither endearing, nor does it make your argument more compelling.

Our identity is our soul.

After the cross the soul no longer goes to hades / sleep state. For the faithful the soul is immediately present with the Lord.

Though we die we shall live. Hades in the old testament is the state of the dead as described in Ezekiel 37:11-14.

The Lord said that when he ascends into heaven no believer will taste death.

Paul writes thaf yo be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Further he also states that the living shall in no way hinder those who have departed.

So the soul after the cross doesn't sleep but it is clothed immediately and in a twinkling of an eye.

Our bones shall rise is a figure of speech to say we will rise from the dust of the earth and since Jesus went to the earth for three days and three nights, the faithful don't go there anymore. Hades has long been vacated of those which were the old testament saints crying under the altar of God.

Wgw · Dec 3, 2015

Berean777 said:
Our identity is our soul.

After the cross the soul no longer goes to hades / sleep state. For the faithful the soul is immediately present with the Lord.

Though we die we shall live. Hades in the old testament is the state of the dead as described in Ezekiel 37:11-14.

The Lord said that when he ascends into heaven no believer will taste death.

Paul writes thaf yo be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Further he also states that the living shall in no way hinder those who have departed.

So the soul after the cross doesn't sleep but it is clothed immediately and in a twinkling of an eye.

Our bones shall rise is a figure of speech to say we will rise from the dust of the earth and since Jesus went to the earth for three days and three nights, the faithful don't go there anymore. Hades has long been vacated of those which were the old testament saints crying under the altar of God.

My only possible objection to what you describe is that in accordance with the Nicene Creed, I believe in the resurrection of the dead in glorified physical form, as opposed to a purely spiritual afterlife. I, together with my Orthodox, RC and traditional Protestant brethren, believe we shall be "raised incorruptible."

Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

old dude

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

Facilitator

old dude

Pray For Brussels!

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Facilitator

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Well-Known Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Pray For Brussels!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency