Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Berean777]

Today we are facing the same problems as the church fathers believe it or not. Our church leaders have been deceived from within their numbers who play the flatteries game.

One must disown the self to oppose them. Some have brothers and sisters, but those who are higher in power are the enemies within.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Firstly they are not would be brothers and sisters in Christ, either they have accepted Christ and they are brothers and sisters or they are not. There is no half measures and no argument that classifies them as would be!

A distinction without a difference.

Simply put there is no excuse and no statement that will appease me in thinking that this NEW AGE UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS formulea that claims to covert thousands is beneficial to the body of Christ. Rather it is OUTRIGHT dangerous.

Fulfilling the Great Commission is dangerous?

So the church (world and not uniquely Catholic) for thousands of years has used a successful formulea for the conversion of nations and now we are hearing a new formulae that promises all the bells and whistles. There is no poof in the pudding in the new universal formulea and it just plays the gnostic universal agenda of yester years.

You keep throwing the word "gnostic" around but I do not see where you have used it accurately yet. You'll want to mind what @Wgw says about it because he's pretty well-informed about gnosticism.

Completely opposite to what Jesus had taught where he said the world does NOT see the Spirit of truth, nor does it know him for he shall be in you and guide you in all truth. Jesus would say the world sees me no more. How could there be truth without the anointing of the Spirit? and if there is a rejection of Christ after the gospel is preached, how could there be any truth in them?

Your just speaking from a humanist point of view and not from the God given biblical point of view as far as God the Father is concerned.

Romans 2:14 speaks of Gentiles who, by definition, didn't have the Law but followed at least parts of it by nature. This is no argument to leave them in spiritual ignorance. They should still receive the gospel. But manifestly there is nothing wrong with recognizing what they have done correctly and the truth(s), if any, they have found on their own.

When you face the Lord, is that what you will tell him. You will tell the Lord that the pre-requisite of establishing HIS truth in men's hearts, is by using their religious beliefs of other religions as the cornerstone to evangelising them?

Why not? St. Paul used that very method successfully in Acts 17 by appealing to the pagans' "unknown god". He even said they worshiped the true God by also worshiping the unknown god.

So, again, your problem with the Great Commission shouldn't be addressed with me or the Church; it's should be taken up with the Lord.

rather he has plotted a path of least resistance to the gospel of Jesus Christ and in so doing he can be labelled as the leader who made endless concessions to sell a gnostic universal religious system, based on many half truths (cornerstones).

You believe the path to Christ should be made as difficult as possible?

 

[Berean777]

A distinction without a difference.

If you want to define Christ and Christless as a distinction without a difference.

Fulfilling the Great Commission is dangerous?

Where is the gospel and when they meet in whose name are they meeting.

You keep throwing the word "gnostic" around but I do not see where you have used it accurately yet. You'll want to mind what @Wgw says about it because he's pretty well-informed about gnosticism.

I replied that it is within the context of the gospels.

Romans 2:14 speaks of Gentiles who, by definition, didn't have the Law but followed at least parts of it by nature. This is no argument to leave them in spiritual ignorance. They should still receive the gospel. But manifestly there is nothing wrong with recognizing what they have done correctly and the truth(s), if any, they have found on their own

.

Ah, you see, these Gentiles were already Christian converts and were compared to those who are Judaizers observing the law. So the comparison is made only because they had recieved the Spirit of truth, after they had accepted Jesus and not before.

Why not? St. Paul used that very method successfully in Acts 17 by appealing to the pagans' "unknown god". He even said they worshiped the true God by also worshiping the unknown god.

Paul was using sarcasm to ridicule them by saying you worship the myriad of gods including the kitchen sink, but now let me introduce you to the God that you do not know.

Paul's criticism was not a compliment at all. The Greeks wanted to cover all gods and so to not offend they even made a statute to an known god in case they missed him from their worship equation.

So, again, your problem with the Great Commission shouldn't be addressed with me or the Church; it's should be taken up with the Lord.

Great concessional commission for the Christless generations to come. No thankyou, I will have no part in that foley. The Lord has instructed us in his name and authority to convert people.

Unfortunately there is no other way. The universal one world religion advocates want us to believe that they can go to convert people in their name or the name of their church.

I find it interesting that on two occassions your church leader addressed the UN and a Mexican conference by saying IN MY NAME AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

So off you go in your own names minus the name of Christ, which was absent from all his speech to the UN, Hmmmmmm... ....

What are we dealing with here?

You believe the path to Christ should be made as difficult as possible?

It has nothing to do with what I think, rather it is according to Christ's instructions to preach him in every town and city. If his name is missing from a congregations evagelism equation, then they should not say that they represent him.

 

[Wgw]

As far as I am concerned, at least one of you chaps is talking past the other. No one has endorsed the kind of syncretism @Berean777 fears, whereas I should also note that no one is arguing against evangelism. Gnosticism is one heresy, universalism another, and not one of the three of us is asvocating either.

That said, there are real Gnostics in this subforum and real Universalists. So let us argue with them rather than engaging in spasmodic intra-Nicene warfare.

 

[Berean777]

If religious leaders from your church or my church want to go in their name and their church, then by all means they can go.

When people go to these interfaith ecumenical meetings, they should clearly state that their purpose is political and not to represent Christ and his name.

On many occassions throughout the Acts of the Apostles Peter mentions in Christ's name or in Jesus Christ, even when he is brought before the sanhedrin before the Jewish religious court.

So whose name are they representing?

John 5:43
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him

Anyone that states I come in my own name, therefore fulfills the role of the verse above and in so doing is accepted by the world, in this case the United Nations.

I will continue to use the name of Jesus in delivering his gospel to the ears and hearts of the people of the world, not to gain favour as some use the opposite formulae, that is their name to gain the favour if the world.

The question that people need to consider is that you are in Christ or in the world.

Personally the state that the world is in right now, I totally don't dig it. People using their own name should be scrutinised, especially those who claim leadership of any Christian denomination.

 

[Berean777]

As far as I am concerned, at least one of you chaps is talking past the other. No one has endorsed the kind of syncretism @Berean777 fears, whereas I should also note that no one is arguing against evangelism. Gnosticism is one heresy, universalism another, and not one of the three of us is asvocating either.

That said, there are real Gnostics in this subforum and real Universalists. So let us argue with them rather than engaging in spasmodic intra-Nicene warfare.

The enemy is within my friend. There are people envoking their name for political gain.

The political side is being hoodwinked to join with the religious who come in their own name. Once they discover these religious men who are pushing for political kingdoms, then God's wrath shall conme down on them heavily.

 

[Albion]

The enemy is within my friend.

Yikes. I'd say to keep clear of that friend, then.

 

[Wgw]

Commas for the win, chaps.

 

[Berean777]

Yikes. I'd say to keep clear of that friend, then.

A watchmen can't flee friend, for he/she needs to sound the trumpet.

 

[Berean777]

What tipped me off is the following statement.

thecolorsblend said: ↑
But if one must eschew the Trinity, I can only see increasing the number of manifestations rather than decreasing them.

Manifestations galore and the pantheon of gods that is emerging from the universal one world religion.

If there is a leader that rocks up to the United Nations and says I come in my name, what is that telling the recipients of this statement?

Forget about the other guy, that the scriptures declare as the stumbling block before all nations. (1 Corinthians 1:23)

I come in my name, not his alright, Hmm...fair enough ay.....

The ten kingdomless Patriarchal kings are gathering for the hour to dine with the drunkenness of wine.

Drink up! Drink!

Taste the blood in your mouths!

Traitors to the blood covenant of Jesus Christ will be exposed at will!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Where is the gospel and when they meet in whose name are they meeting.

Given that they're meeting as people alienated from each other, they have little or no common ground with which to start.

I replied that it is within the context of the gospels.

Notwithstanding, you're still using the word incorrectly.

Ah, you see, these Gentiles were already Christian converts and were compared to those who are Judaizers observing the law. So the comparison is made only because they had recieved the Spirit of truth, after they had accepted Jesus and not before.

Um, the passage explicitly says those Gentiles did not have the Law. They were not God-fearing Gentiles. And yet they intuitively followed some aspects of the Law anyway because the Moral Law is a real thing.

Paul was using sarcasm to ridicule them by saying you worship the myriad of gods including the kitchen sink, but now let me introduce you to the God that you do not know.

And yet he still converted several people. His method of finding common ground with non-believers and then giving them Our Lord worked.

No thankyou, I will have no part in that foley.

I hardly think evangelism is folley.

The universal one world religion advocates want us to believe that they can go to convert people in their name or the name of their church.

Oy...

I find it interesting that on two occassions your church leader addressed the UN and a Mexican conference by saying IN MY NAME AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I'm not familiar with the exact quotation or what precisely was said so I will not comment.

It has nothing to do with what I think, rather it is according to Christ's instructions to preach him in every town and city.

That's more or less impossible to do considering the terms and limitations you've set up.

What tipped me off is the following statement.

What was said was not a very complicated statement. In fact, literally nobody else who replied had any trouble understanding my meaning. Nobody. Zero.

But, since you do not seem to grasp my meaning, I will clarify.

The purpose of this thread is discussing the rejection of the Trinity and how unjustified that brand of theology is. I very honestly don't know how an uninformed outsider could read sacred scripture and not believe in the Trinity. An uninformed outsider may not know to call it the Trinity. But the three persons of the Trinity are clear in sacred scripture.

Hence my comment that you cannot have less than three persons. The minimum is the Trinity. And since you don't seem able or willing to infer, I believe three to be the correct number.

However, I've read interesting commentary from various people, primarily Messianic Jews, who argue that God manifests Himself in more than just three ways in sacred scripture. The instances which spring readily to mind were the burning bush in Exodus, the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire also in Exodus and the individual whom Jacob wrestled. This MJ commentator therefore posited that sacred scripture reveals more than just three methods for God to become involved in the world.

In the post that you seem to have trouble getting past, I rhetorically said that the MJ commentator, a non-Trinitarian, has a stronger argument in his favor for wanting a higher number of manifestations than other non-Trinitarians who want less than three manifestations.

Now, everybody else understood that I was not endorsing any kind of non-Trinitarian argument; I was simply making the point that three is the minimum (and, I believe, the maximum) number. Nothing I've said implicitly or explicitly suggests I am non-Trinitarian or that I in any way subscribe to non-Trinitarian theology. Elliptically everyone else seemed to understand that much, even one member with whom I normally do not agree on much of anything.

Now you should understand as well.

Even so, I grow weary of your invective so my promise to you is this: Having clarified my views on the Trinity (eg, I believe in it), if you accuse me one more time of being a non-Trinitarian or pantheistic or whatever this silly "universal one world religion" nonsense is supposed to mean, I will contact a mod and let him sort you out.

I ask you to not put me in that position as I do not enjoy ratting anybody out. But you're not leaving me with very many other options. I've asked you at least twice now to be reasonable and fair. It looks to me like you're more interested in making accusations and being mean.

Ain't nobody got time for that... except a mod.

Don't push me anymore. Okay?

 

[Doveaman]

Not so, because if that were true then how is it said in this scripture that the soul is in Hades,

For you shall not abandon my soul in Hades, nor shall you give your sacred one to see corruption. (Psalms 16:10 [ABP])

The soul, which is what your being is, is what goes to Hades. The spirit that is in you, is a breath that gives your body and soul life, once this breath leaves you, you die. You SOUL which is where your BEING, is collected in Hades, and your body, RETURNS TO THE GROUND.

There is alot of worldly philosophy concerning these things that confuses many as to the scriptural difference between each of these things.

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

As presented in Genesis 2:7, the living soul is the life-energy of Man which is generated by the union of Man's spirit and body.

When Man's spirit is united with his body this union gives rise to the life-energy of Man as a living soul.

The living soul is the life-energy of Man in the context of Genesis 2:7.

The verse you quoted below is simply telling us that God will restore the soul/life of His Son and not allow Him to remain dead in the grave/Hades.

*For you shall not abandon my soul in Hades, nor shall you give your sacred one to see corruption.* -- (Psalms 16:10)

God will not allow His Son to remain dead in the grave, God will restore His life.

 

[Doveaman]

So what does it mean to conceive when God conceives God in Mary's womb?

To bring forth, meaning to enter into. The one indivisible Spirit who is God (John 4:4), entered into his own creation as the Emmanuel, by putting on the garment of his servants. That is why in Philippians versus above, God takes the very nature of a servant, making himself in human likeness.

And my point was that Jesus only became "in human likeness" after His incarnation. Which meant that He only became the divine, human Son of God after His human incarnation.

Whenever the one Spirit is doing this in the Old and New Testaments we see a pattern emerging, who who this person is declared as.

Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Nebuchadnezzar is not referring to Jesus in this verse as the son of God. He is referring here to an angel as the son of God. Angels were referred to as sons of God by the ancients.

The scriptures you quoted above went on to say:

*Then Nebuchadnezzar spoke, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in Him* -- (Dan 3:28).

Nebuchadnezzar is referring to an angel as being "like the son of God". He is not referring to Jesus here.

Daniel even highlighted that the Living Word is the distinct person of the one infinite Spirit who is defined as the Son of man.

Daniel 7:13
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Daniel is here referring to a future event which God showed Daniel in a vision. He is describing the time after Jesus' incarnation into human form, after Jesus became the human Son of Man.

So when the person of the Living Word is visible in the world, even before the incarnation, he is called the Son.

Not according to the verses you quoted. You quoted the verses out of context.

Maybe there are other credible verses you can find to prove your point, but not the ones you just quoted.

I want to also highlight that your statement below is in error and must be scrutinised. The reason why I went to such extreme with the above versus is to flatly reject your claim, as being nonsense, without any disrespect projected towards you beloved brother.

He only became the Son after His incarnation.

If you had addressed my entire post you would have noticed that I was referring to Jesus as the divine, human Son of God.

He only became the divine, human Son of God after His incarnation into human form.

Again, you are quoting out of context.

 

[cgaviria]

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

As presented in Genesis 2:7, the living soul is the life-energy of Man which is generated by the union of Man's spirit and body.

When Man's spirit is united with his body this union gives rise to the life-energy of Man as a living soul.

The living soul is the life-energy of Man in the context of Genesis 2:7.

The verse you quoted below is simply telling us that God will restore the soul/life of His Son and not allow Him to remain dead in the grave/Hades.

*For you shall not abandon my soul in Hades, nor shall you give your sacred one to see corruption.* -- (Psalms 16:10)

God will not allow His Son to remain dead in the grave, God will restore His life.

Are you aware that once this spirit leaves our bodies we die? This spirit is not some ghost inside you that somehow continues floating out of your body when you die. This spirit is your breath. Hence why we have,

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])

This breath of life is you breathing, which is keeping your soul conscious and your body alive. Your consciousness does not reside in this breath, but rather in your SOUL is where you are aware. And the breath animates your soul and body. This breath is imparted to us being sons of Adam, hence why we have,

So also it has been written, [*5*became *1*The *2*first *3*man *4*Adam] [*2*soul *1*a living]; the last Adam into a spirit being restored to life. (I Corinthians 15:45 [ABP])

And where does this breath go when you die? Back to God who gave it,

then [*3*shall return *1*the *2*dust] upon the earth as it was; and the spirit should return to the God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7 [ABP])

The same Greek word here "pneuma" is used to connote "breath". So when you give your last breath you are literally returning the air that kept you alive. Your body then dies and decays and goes back to the earth, and your soul is collected in Hades and remains in a "sleep" state since it doesn't have this "breath of life" to keep it alive, nor does it have a body to inhabit. That is why it is called the abode of the dead. It is collected in Hades so that it can be resurrected in the future.

However, there is a difference between this "breath" of Adam that we have as being mortal creatures with having a soul and body, and then of receiving a NEW SPIRIT (HOLY SPIRIT) that is higher than the breath of Adam that can currently inhabit our mortal bodies, and then of the new bodies to come which will be immortal spiritual bodies just as the body of Jesus was resurrected into a spiritual body.

 

[Berean777]

Given that they're meeting as people alienated from each other, they have little or no common ground with which to start.

Notwithstanding, you're still using the word incorrectly.

Um, the passage explicitly says those Gentiles did not have the Law. They were not God-fearing Gentiles. And yet they intuitively followed some aspects of the Law anyway because the Moral Law is a real thing.

And yet he still converted several people. His method of finding common ground with non-believers and then giving them Our Lord worked.

I hardly think evangelism is folley.

Oy...

I'm not familiar with the exact quotation or what precisely was said so I will not comment.

That's more or less impossible to do considering the terms and limitations you've set up.

What was said was not a very complicated statement. In fact, literally nobody else who replied had any trouble understanding my meaning. Nobody. Zero.

But, since you do not seem to grasp my meaning, I will clarify.

The purpose of this thread is discussing the rejection of the Trinity and how unjustified that brand of theology is. I very honestly don't know how an uninformed outsider could read sacred scripture and not believe in the Trinity. An uninformed outsider may not know to call it the Trinity. But the three persons of the Trinity are clear in sacred scripture.

Hence my comment that you cannot have less than three persons. The minimum is the Trinity. And since you don't seem able or willing to infer, I believe three to be the correct number.

However, I've read interesting commentary from various people, primarily Messianic Jews, who argue that God manifests Himself in more than just three ways in sacred scripture. The instances which spring readily to mind were the burning bush in Exodus, the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire also in Exodus and the individual whom Jacob wrestled. This MJ commentator therefore posited that sacred scripture reveals more than just three methods for God to become involved in the world.

In the post that you seem to have trouble getting past, I rhetorically said that the MJ commentator, a non-Trinitarian, has a stronger argument in his favor for wanting a higher number of manifestations than other non-Trinitarians who want less than three manifestations.

Now, everybody else understood that I was not endorsing any kind of non-Trinitarian argument; I was simply making the point that three is the minimum (and, I believe, the maximum) number. Nothing I've said implicitly or explicitly suggests I am non-Trinitarian or that I in any way subscribe to non-Trinitarian theology. Elliptically everyone else seemed to understand that much, even one member with whom I normally do not agree on much of anything.

Now you should understand as well.

Even so, I grow weary of your invective so my promise to you is this: Having clarified my views on the Trinity (eg, I believe in it), if you accuse me one more time of being a non-Trinitarian or pantheistic or whatever this silly "universal one world religion" nonsense is supposed to mean, I will contact a mod and let him sort you out.

I ask you to not put me in that position as I do not enjoy ratting anybody out. But you're not leaving me with very many other options. I've asked you at least twice now to be reasonable and fair. It looks to me like you're more interested in making accusations and being mean.

Ain't nobody got time for that... except a mod.

Don't push me anymore. Okay?

Who was behind the burning bush? Hmmmmmm..............

The Angel of Yahweh's presence.

Isaiah 63:9-12

In all their affliction he was afflicted,
and the Angel of his (Yahweh) presence saved them:
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit:
therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying,
Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock?
where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm,
dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?

Just like Jesus after his resurrection appeared to many and they did not recognise him until he opened their eyes, the burning bush is a similar scenario where the Angel of Yahweh's presence who is the risen Lord Jesus of Nazareth would make before Moses appear a burning bush that did not consume, but it was his presence.

Now is this a manifestation of the Lord separate to the trinity?

Absolutely not!

The Lord is one Lord and he is the visible Yahweh who can comminicate to his created beings through means that would ultimately end up identifying with him. Just like those that walked with him along the road to Emmaus, then later he would open their eyes and they recognised him. You see the Lord likes to do a progressive reveal as he plants himself in the midst of his creation and curiously and slowly gives clues to his identity before the full reveal.

Now if we look at other religions, we can most certainly say that the Lord has not manifested to them in the forms that they depict, because at the end there is no revealing to the identity of the Lord. If the other religions did see a manifestation of the Lord then they would also like us identify with the one Lord.

When we talk of the trinity we are really talking of one being Yahweh who is both invisible and visible and from him proceeds the Holy Ghost. Within his being there are three distinct personalities that operate in coeternal and coequal Union to compliment his being as to his existance I Am.

Now the Jews say that the burning bush is a different manifestation of God. I say no they are wrong, the burning bush is the slow reveal of the Lord, before Moses would come face to face with him. When he finally came face to face with him his face would change. If the Lord did not slowly reveal himself to Moses, it would be too much for Moses and he would be shocked to death. So the Lord on the road to Emmaus does this slow reveal after they have walked for miles and sit down to eat at the table. If he revealed himself too quick, then again the shock factor. So the Lord considers our state of mind and our weakness so not to bring harm to us, if he does decide to reveal himself to us.

I was brought before the Lord and I tell you the blissful love that emanates from him is the gravitational forces of the Whole universe and some more. Even I was broken beyond belief and was sobbing uncontrollably as both eyes were rivers of tears. I saw him as in the depiction of the form on the mount of transfiguration. The man in white that many throughout generations have come to know.

The Lord doesn't just manifest in different incoherent ways, rather he does it deliberately and as part of the slow reveal until he knows that you can handle him. Otherwise if you are not prepared, then the shock will literally kill you.

I can testify that I saw the visible Yahweh face to face as I was kneeling before his feet and sobbing like a child before my beloved and precious Father.

 

[Wgw]

Who was behind the burning bush? Hmmmmmm..............

The Angel of Yahweh's presence.



Just like Jesus after his resurrection appeared to many and they did not recognise him until he opened their eyes, the burning bush is a similar scenario where the Angel of Yahweh's presence who is the risen Lord Jesus of Nazareth would make before Moses appear a burning bush that did not consume, but it was his presence.

Now is this a manifestation of the Lord separate to the trinity?

Absolutely not!

The Lord is one Lord and he is the visible Yahweh who can comminicate to his created beings through means that would ultimately end up identifying with him. Just like those that walked with him along the road to Emmaus, then later he would open their eyes and they recognised him. You see the Lord likes to do a progressive reveal as he plants himself in the midst of his creation and curiously and slowly gives clues to his identity before the full reveal.

Now if we look at other religions, we can most certainly say that the Lord has not manifested to them in the forms that they depict, because at the end there is no revealing to the identity of the Lord. If the other religions did see a manifestation of the Lord then they would also like us identify with the one Lord.

When we talk of the trinity we are really talking of one being Yahweh who is both invisible and visible and from him proceeds the Holy Ghost. Within his being there are three distinct personalities that operate in coeternal and coequal Union to compliment his being as to his existance I Am.

Now the Jews say that the burning bush is a different manifestation of God. I say no they are wrong, the burning bush is the slow reveal of the Lord, before Moses would come face to face with him. When he finally came face to face with him his face would change. If the Lord did not slowly reveal himself to Moses, it would be too much for Moses and he would be shocked to death. So the Lord on the road to Emmaus does this slow reveal after they have walked for miles and sit down to eat at the table. If he revealed himself too quick, then again the shock factor. So the Lord considers our state of mind and our weakness so not to bring harm to us, if he does decide to reveal himself to us.

I was brought before the Lord and I tell you the blissful love that emanates from him is the gravitational forces of the Whole universe and some more. Even I was broken beyond belief and was sobbing uncontrollably as both eyes were rivers of tears. I saw him as in the depiction of the form on the mount of transfiguration. The man in white that many throughout generations have come to know.

The Lord doesn't just manifest in different incoherent ways, rather he does it deliberately and as part of the slow reveal until he knows that you can handle him. Otherwise if you are not prepared, then the shock will literally kill you.

I can testify that I saw the visible Yahweh face to face as I was kneeling before his feet and sobbing like a child before my beloved and precious Father.

Strictly speaking only the incarnate Lord and at times rhe Holy Spirit are known to have visibility; it is accepted by Chrostoan theologoans that the father is invisble.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Who was behind the burning bush? Hmmmmmm..............

That is not my problem, my point or my concern. Someone else mentioned it as non-Trinitarian manifestation of God. Not me. I'm not sure why you are struggling so hard with this concept about this but I'm running out of ways to say I mentioned it to contribute to this conversation; not to advance my own ideas.

The Lord doesn't just manifest in different incoherent ways, rather he does it deliberately and as part of the slow reveal until he knows that you can handle him. Otherwise if you are not prepared, then the shock will literally kill you.

None of which is even remotely related to my point. Someone else made that analysis years ago. I read it years ago. I shared it here recently to impart what I believe is the silliness non-Trinitarianism in the direction of reducing the Godhead to less than three. Apparently explaining the concept to you beyond that point will only result in another lengthy treatise on how "I" am wrong... even though I never advanced that argument to begin with. But I hope this is sufficient clarification for you since I have made the concept about as simple as I possibly can.

 

[Berean777]

Strictly speaking only the incarnate Lord and at times rhe Holy Spirit are known to have visibility; it is accepted by Chrostoan theologoans that the father is invisble.

Yes the person of the Father is invisible. The Father is the invisible Yahweh.

But when one comes face to face with the Son, he sees the person of the Father through the Son.

It is very hard to explain, I will do my best.

The person of the Son is the one to one express image of the one substance/being who is the invisible Yahweh. Philip was wanting to see the invisible Father but Jesus said if you have seen me then you have seen him also.

In other words the Son is the perfect copy of the Father as the visible Yahweh. When I was brought before him my whole being knew that this being/substance that I saw as the Son is my Father.

There is a difference in personality from Father and Son but the being whether invisible or visible still remains Yahweh in all his completeness as coequal and coeternal. I know the being is my Father even though I was brought before the Son and I in my whole heart have this relationship with him as my Father.

There is no separation of beings between Father and Son. The personalities are different but he is the one Yahweh. I was brought before the visible Yahweh.

 

[Berean777]

That is not my problem, my point or my concern. Someone else mentioned it as non-Trinitarian manifestation of God. Not me. I'm not sure why you are struggling so hard with this concept about this but I'm running out of ways to say I mentioned it to contribute to this conversation; not to advance my own ideas.

None of which is even remotely related to my point. Someone else made that analysis years ago. I read it years ago. I shared it here recently to impart what I believe is the silliness non-Trinitarianism in the direction of reducing the Godhead to less than three. Apparently explaining the concept to you beyond that point will only result in another lengthy treatise on how "I" am wrong... even though I never advanced that argument to begin with. But I hope this is sufficient clarification for you since I have made the concept about as simple as I possibly can.

Ok. Thankyou kindly for your contribution and in clarifying your position. In this matter I respect that.

May the Lord shine his Light in all of us.

 

[Wgw]

Yes the person of the Father is invisible. The Father is the invisible Yahweh.

But when one comes face to face with the Son, he sees the person of the Father through the Son.

It is very hard to explain, I will do my best.

The person of the Son is the one to one express image of the one substance/being who is the invisible Yahweh. Philip was wanting to see the invisible Father but Jesus said if you have seen me then you have seen him also.

In other words the Son is the perfect copy of the Father as the visible Yahweh. When I was brought before him my whole being knew that this being/substance that I saw as the Son is my Father.

There is a difference in personality from Father and Son but the being whether invisible or visible still remains Yahweh in all his completeness as coequal and coeternal. I know the being is my Father even though I was brought before the Son and I in my whole heart have this relationship with him as my Father.

There is no separation of beings between Father and Son. The personalities are different but he is the one Yahweh. I was brought before the visible Yahweh.

That's basically correct although not as precisely articulated as one might otherwise prefer. I am a stickler for extremely exact triadological and Christological expression.