Really? Trinity?

[Ripheus27]

It seems the pattern of anti-Trinity argument runs as follows:

1. Deny that "Trinity" appears in the Bible. Claim all passages in which Jesus is read as claiming to be God are misinterpreted, contradict other passages if read this way, etc. Claim passages which speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together as spurious insertions or non-Trinitarian in meaning.

2. When the Trinitarian points out that there are passages in the Bible that contradict unitarianism when read according to their "plain meaning," the unitarian will then point to an interpretation of the seemingly contradictory passage, one that reconciles it with unitarianism. At this point, appeals to plain meaning fade.

3. Step two: claim that "Trinity" violates logic/arithmetic/something along this line. However, when the Trinity doctrine is shown to be coherent or mathematically possible, this part of the argument is set aside.

4. Step three: claim that "Trinity" came from a questionable source, or was proclaimed by a questionable authority, e.g. it was a concession to pagan god-triads, or based on Greek philosophy, etc. When the history of the doctrine is shown to be morally okay at least, this part of the argument is set aside.

5. Accuse Trinitarians of worshiping Satan.​

 

[TheBarrd]

I have, NOT ONCE, attempt to usurp the authority of your husband or you father. Once again, you falsely accuse me.

Paul didn't state that women shall not usurp the authority of their husbands or fathers, he plainly stated MAN. Shall I QUOTE what he stated? Once again you ERR in favor of your LUSTS and DESIRES.

1 Timothy 2:

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.




I don't see ONE word about HUSBANDS or FATHERS. Do you?


Blessings,


MEC

Hey...my quote thingie worked!!! Yay!!!!!!!

There are a couple of things about this passage you ought to think about.

This verse, for instance:

1Co_11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Now if the lady is going to pray in church, she might could do it silently...I doubt Paul is telling her to cover her head in the privacy of her own home.
But if she is gonna prophecy, she's gonna have to open her mouth...head covering notwithstanding.

Also, I don't think that even you would try to sit there and tell us that it is only women who ought to adorn themselves with humility and good works.
(ahem...humility)

And again...you do know where Timothy was, don't you? In case you didn't, he was in Ephesus. If you don't know, this was the home of the "goddess" Diana. Now, the cult of Diana was presided over by women. And these weren't "nice girls" either. They held life or death authority over members of the cult of Diana...and they weren't afraid to use it, either. I think they also employed prostitutes of both sexes...but I might be wrong on that one.
Anyhow, Paul didn't want a repeat of the situation with Moloch that we discussed earlier. In other words, he didn't want the women of Ehpesus, many of whom had come from the cult of Diana, to "usurp authority" such as the priestesses of Diana held.
See, when you read these things, it is always good to know a little something about who is being addressed.
I realize that the Catholic church has long used this verse to keep their women "in subjection"...but thank God that is phasing out of other mainline churches. Even the Episcopalians are ordaining women these days.
In any case, that verse in no way gives you any authority over me or any other woman. It merely advises Timothy not to let women in his church to "usurp authority" over the men.

Oh...and the verse from Corinthians that I posted...
You know, of course, that Corinth was a seaport city. In other words...harbor gals.
If you know anything at all about living in a seaport city, even today...Paul's advice here would make perfect sense.
Consider, too, that the early church followed the pattern the people knew...husbands and wives weren't sitting together in neat little pews. These church meetings were generally held in people's homes, and the women would probably have been in the kitchen, while the men sat in the "parlor". What Paul did not want was for the speaker to be constantly interrupted by women screaming across the distance..."Hey, Henry...what are you guys talking about?"
And remember too...in these days the idea of sexual equality was pretty new. Paul did mention that "in Christ there is no male or female"...all are one in Christ.
I know that rankles...but there it is.

 

[2ducklow]

It seems the pattern of anti-Trinity argument runs as follows:

1. Deny that "Trinity" appears in the Bible. Claim all passages in which Jesus is read as claiming to be God are misinterpreted, contradict other passages if read this way, etc. Claim passages which speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together as spurious insertions or non-Trinitarian in meaning.​

not quite accurate, also you claim the opposite of what we claim so?

2. When the Trinitarian points out that there are passages in the Bible that contradict unitarianism when read according to their "plain meaning," the unitarian will then point to an interpretation of the seemingly contradictory passage, one that reconciles it with unitarianism. At this point, appeals to plain meaning fade.

I explained that. You have refused to deal with my explanation about Jesus being foreknown. So you are refusing to face the fact that Jesus was foreknown. PLUS, the plain meaning of "if you right eye offends you pluck it out" is not what Jesus meant. Jesus didn't mean the plain meaning , pluck out your eye. Everyone knows that, that's why everyone has a nonliteral interpretation of that verse. So your plain reading argument is the only possibility is bogus.

actually there is a saying people hold to , it goes like this. "if the plain sense of scripture makes sense, then don't look for another sense" . Well the plain sense of 'pluck out your eye' doesn't make sense so one should look for another sense to that scripture. Likewise the plain sense of "Jesus was slain before he was born" doesn't make sense so one should look for another sense to that scripture that says 'slain before the foundation of the world". and the sense that makes sense is that God foreknew Jesus and in that foreknowledge of God, Jesus was slain before the foundation of God.

the word in 1 pet 1.20 is foreknown not foreordained. It was just changed to accomidate trinity.

3. Step two: claim that "Trinity" violates logic/arithmetic/something along this line.

yep.

However, when the Trinity doctrine is shown to be coherent or mathematically possible, this part of the argument is set aside.

No one has or can show Trinity to be coherent, or mathematically possible. Your arguments are just confusing ramblings.

4. Step three: claim that "Trinity" came from a questionable source, or was proclaimed by a questionable authority, e.g. it was a concession to pagan god-triads, or based on Greek philosophy, etc.

Yep so true.

When the history of the doctrine is shown to be morally okay at least, this part of the argument is set aside.

never heard any morally correct argument to prove trinity. That's a new one on me.

5. Accuse Trinitarians of worshiping Satan.

I've never done that, I don't recall anyone doing that, though some might have. I do recall people saying that trinity has a demonic origin, but that's different than saying Trinitarians worship Satan. In my opinion, all false doctrines have at the very least some demonic influence, and all Christians have some false doctrines, but that doesn't make them worshipers of Satan.

 

[TheBarrd]

As far as any of my LUSTS or DESIRES are concerned, you need not worry. I assure you, such lusts or desires as I might have do not involve you.
Unless you are made of chocolate? I do seem to have a thing for chocolate this morning...

 

[katerinah1947]

Welll actually, the fact that you have told us who you are, where to find you in Corvallis Oregon, and at what time, suggests to me that you're looking for a boyfriend.

Hi,
Using your logic, this would suggest to me, you are looking. That is flattering to me. Yes, I give you permissions to try and date me. I may not be interested though but you can try. Unfortunately, with the way you have treated TheBarrd, out of love and respect for her, the answer will always be no to you, until you change. Also, did you miss the fact that I am married, and married to God? I am allowed humans on earth to be amorous with, yet, He is still always first, and as such you will have to be like Him, in order for me to give you the time of day, on a date, or even give you a date.
Thanks for asking.
LOVE and love,
...Katerina.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi,
Using your logic, this would suggest to me, you are looking. That is flattering to me. Yes, I give you permissions to try and date me. I may not be interested though but you can try. Unfortunately, with the way you have treated TheBarrd, out of love and respect for her, the answer will always be no to you, until you change. Also, did you miss the fact that I am married, and married to God? I am allowed humans on earth to be amorous with, yet, He is still always first, and as such you will have to be like Him, in order for me to give you the time of day, on a date, or even give you a date.
Thanks for asking.
LOVE and love,
...Katerina.

OH gee, I almost puked. You're a man in the eyes of God. that's how he created you, and you will never be a woman in the eyes of God. you may be considered a woman in the eyes of the law and you may have even altered your god given body to look like a woman's body, but you're not a woman. And you can never alter your man brain to be a female brain. female brains are different than male brains. That's why we act different. you can alter your body but you can't change your brain to a female brain. you will continue to act like a male because your brain is male. female brains have more gray matter, which is the connecting matter they have less (9 percent less) of the thinking portion of the brain. you will forever have a male brain, no matter what you do to your male body. a peach made to look like an apple is still a peach. you can't make a female out of a male, and you can't make a male out of a female. so my advice to you would be for you to stop taking female hormones and let your body get back to the way God intended it to be.

and, I have a wife. and she was born that way. that's the kind I want. I think I've been to that museum a long time ago. or maybe it was in macminville.

 

[TheBarrd]

Hi,
Using your logic, this would suggest to me, you are looking. That is flattering to me. Yes, I give you permissions to try and date me. I may not be interested though but you can try. Unfortunately, with the way you have treated TheBarrd, out of love and respect for her, the answer will always be no to you, until you change. Also, did you miss the fact that I am married, and married to God? I am allowed humans on earth to be amorous with, yet, He is still always first, and as such you will have to be like Him, in order for me to give you the time of day, on a date, or even give you a date.
Thanks for asking.
LOVE and love,
...Katerina.

Oh, too priceless!!!!!

You go, girl!!!!

 

[2ducklow]

Oh, too priceless!!!!!

You go, girl!!!!

hummmmmm, are you one of them too?

 

[2ducklow]

So when can we get back to the topic of the thread?

 

[TheBarrd]

For those who may have missed it:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.


You can read this verse in your own Bible, of course. It's in there.

Notice, there are two people here that Paul says are "of not among the apostles"...one is Andronicus. No one has a problem with Andronicus...this is a man's name.
However, Junia is not a man's name...although efforts have been made to make it seem as if it were. No, Junia is a woman.
So, it seems that there were female apostles...at least one, anyhow.

And if you read the entire chapter, you will quickly see that many of the people whom Paul commends are women...women who hold positions of authority in the early church.

 

[2ducklow]

For those who may have missed it:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.


You can read this verse in your own Bible, of course. It's in there.

Notice, there are two people here that Paul says are "of not among the apostles"...one is Andronicus. No one has a problem with Andronicus...this is a man's name.
However, Junia is not a man's name...although efforts have been made to make it seem as if it were. No, Junia is a woman.
So, it seems that there were female apostles...at least one, anyhow.

And if you read the entire chapter, you will quickly see that many of the people whom Paul commends are women...women who hold positions of authority in the early church.

Was Junia "among" as "one of" the apostles, or just highly regarded by the apostles?


Many mentally read this scripture and add several of their own words—"They are (said to be) outstanding among (here they substitute "by") the apostles." Changing "among" and adding the other four words totally changes the meaning of this scripture! However, these four words—said to be/by—are not in the Greek text. In studying scriptures we cannot just randomly add words or change the words that are there! For the meaning "by" Paul would have used one of two totally different Greek words—para or pros—rather than using en which implies selection from within a group.1

Paul never relied on the opinions of other apostles to back his teaching or his praise.2 He knew these two very well, having been in prison with them. Why would he be saying that others thought they were outstanding? He knew them best and he was praising them as "outstanding (or eminent) among the apostles." Paul considered them apostles just as he considered himself to be an apostle. They were part of the group called apostles, they were apostles, and were setting an outstanding example.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "Paul describes them as being prominent among the apostles, and as having been Christians before him."

The United Bible Societies Handbook Series, an acknowledged authority composed of a board of respected translators, first acknowledges that they are a male/female team, "Adronicus and Junias ... could easily have been husband and wife, or brother and sister." They acknowledge that some misunderstood the sentence, "to mean 'the apostles know them well,' but a far more acceptable interpretation would imply that these...were counted as apostles and were well known, for example, 'as apostles they are well known.'"3

Junia, A Women Apostle - FREE bible articles prove women can serve as leaders!

I don't know if this is correct but it does point out that the reading can be taken by some to indicate that it means Junia was an apotle, and by others that it wasn't. I haven't researched it enough to make a judgement, and I don't care, so I probably won't. Cause I know that an apostle is someone who brings new light to a region, and apostleship didn't die. As to whether they can be female, I don't care.

on the other hand I can't watch Joyce Meyers. she's too butch for me.

 

[Imagican]

I found that there is ONE thing DUMBER than trying to argue with a 'stop sign' ...... Trying to BE a 'stop sign'.

Look guys, this is a thread designed to discuss 'trinity'. But from the START, I BELIEVE that it was PERFECTLY CLEAR how I view 'trinity'. I didn't try to TRICK anyone into joining the discussion. "Trinity, REALLY?". I DO believe that this is a PRETTY good indication that of my view.

I didn't ask anyone to LIKE what I have to offer. Didn't EXPECT it nor demand it. It was OPENED as an OPEN discussion. What I DIDN'T intend to do was open a thread designed for opposing sides to insult each other.

Almost EVERY thread I have EVER opened, I expressed my intent from the BEGINNING and that intent is ALWAYS to discuss things from a BIBLICAL basis. I don't MIND personal opinion, but the PURPOSE IS NOT 'personal opinion', but the BIBLE. What does the BIBLE offer verses what people have COME to believe so far as ritual and tradition.

I have NO problem with the concept of ritual OR tradition. But so long as it has SOME OTHER basis than some MAN 'creating it'. Or a GROUP of men 'creating it' in CONTRADICTION to what we are offered in the Bible.

Yes, I'm a King James kind of guy. Won't argue that point. So there will OBVIOUSLY be different interpretations of DIFFERENT versions. Even an amount of different interpretation of the KING JAMES VERSION itself.

But the Bible tells us that IT IS THE MEANS by which we are to COMPARE what is offered by others in order to KNOW if what they offer is the TRUTH or of their OWN design. And we are to accept NO doctrines 'created by MEN'. That the ONLY doctrine we are to FOLLOW is that delivered by GOD through HIS word. Not the 'word of men'. And we are able to KNOW the difference by STUDYING the SCRIPTURES.

Every words of the Bible is NOT 'literal'. There is what we have been informed of as 'parables', (while offering TRUTH they are not meant to be taken LITERAL. They are often FIGURATIVE). There is POETRY. There is allegory. And just like with ANY language, there are ALWAYS words uttered that were NEVER meant to be taken literal. And it is MY belief that those LED by the Holy Spirit are LED to understand the DIFFERENCE.

But we will NEVER come to the TRUTH if we DECIDE FIRST to try to FIND what we BELIEVE in the Bible. For those that choose to follow lies God Himself will offer STRONG delusion so that they will BELIEVE the lies they CHOOSE to follow. That is one of the means that God will use when it comes time for JUDGEMENT: WHO has a DESIRE for the TRUTH instead of PROOF of what they WANT to believe? Who is willing to FOLLOW instead of trying to be their OWN leader? Who is able to SHARE instead of merely TAKE? Who is capable of UNDERSTANDING and PRACTICING love?

So I'm REALLY not interested in PERSONAL opinion formed OUTSIDE of the Bible. Whether it be 'trinity' or 'infant baptism' or 'forbidding to wed' or calling a man 'father', or any other TRADITION that is formed in CONTRADICTION to the Bible. You are free to offer it, but if you START it, then that opens up permission for ME TOO to offer MY opinion. And I can assure EVERYONE reading this: my OPINIONS are NOT popular. They do NOT appeal to MEN, (or women). And I'll KEEP most of them to myself so long as others are willing to DO THE SAME.

And understand this: I am FULLY LOADED. That means I don't BRING UP topics that I KNOW nothing about. That is the PURPOSE of the topics that I DO bring up. To TEACH those that most likely HAVE YET to learn what it is that I offer. If that OFFENDS you, that only goes to SHOW that you probably aren't of the mindset or heart/set to LEARN ANYTHING. For YOU ALREADY KNOW too much for ANYONE to teach you ANYTHING. I don't PICK subjects that I DON'T KNOW about. There are MANY that you will NEVER see my posts in. That is WHY I MOSTLY post in MY OWN THREADS.

But I can assure you that there ARE some things that I KNOW. Not GUESSING, not WISHFUL THINKING, not merely BELIEVING because I WANT TO. But things that have been revealed through study and Spirit.

It is the 'way of the deceiver' to deal with deception. It is NOT the 'way of God' to deal in SECRETS. You can call them 'mysteries' or whatever NAME you choose, but that is EXACTLY what 'trinity' IS when you break it down to it's basic form. It is a MAN made "graven image" that is NOT introduced THROUGH the Word of God. It is THROUGH misinterpretation that one can FIND 'trinity' IN the Bible. And it takes someONE teaching it to another to even KNOW of it's existence.

If you were stranded on a desert island with ONLY a Bible and NO ONE had EVER taught you the word "TRINITY", you COULD NOT FIND it in the BIBLE. That, in and OF ITSELF goes to PROVE that 'trinity' is a MAN MADE concept. It is DEFINED by LAWS instituted by an INSTITUTION that called itself the Roman Catholic Church. And DEFINED by LAW. Law that stated one MUST believe or they are NOT a part of THEIR CHURCH. That is NOT what we were TAUGHT by Christ. What we were taught by Christ is that we who COME to the TRUTH are FREE from laws written on stone, (or paper or any other device of man). Yet that is EXACTLY HOW 'trinity' was introduced into the Roman Catholic Church: BY LAWS.

I have already quoted scripture that WARNS us NOT to even THINK of Godhead in such a manner. Yet it seems that those that bow to this 'trinity' can't even UNDERSTAND the words offered directly through God's Word.

You can google 'trinity' yourself and click IMAGES and SEE just HOW MANY 'graven images' of this 'trinity' men have CREATED. Some of them MORE intricate than the very TEMPLES they built to represent this 'false god'. Multi part gods is what God revealed Himself NOT TO BE. His SINGULAR. ONE. And the fact that WE can become ONE with Both God and His Son PLAINLY destroys the idea that Father and Son being ONE is in ANY indicative manner meant to SHOW us that they are THE SAME. NO WHERE in the Bible are we offered that Father, Son and Spirit are THREE PERSONS in ONE God. You may BELIEVE this concept and FIND evidence of it if you TRY. But in TRUTH, the concept didn't even EXIST until HUNDREDS of years AFTER the death of Christ. The apostles CERTAINLY NEVER taught THREE persons in ONE God. They had NO conception of such an IDEA. Or if they DID, they NEVER offered it in SCRIPTURE.

You can probably NOT imagine HOW MANY TIME I have tried to discuss Biblically SOUND doctrine with those that offer, "Well, I'm not going to waste MY time talking TO you if ALL you're going to DO is 'quote scripture". Do you KNOW how SILLY that sounds to ME? But it seems that this is the EXACT method used by those that attempt to defend 'trinity'. They offer INDIVIDUALS lines taken OUT of context and PRETEND that it's SCRIPTURE. We are NOT to 'study LINES of scripture out of the Bible'. There IS no 'scripture' IN individual LINES. Scripture is the MEANING behind ALL the lines. It is the information revealed through the TOTALITY of scripture, NOT individual LINES. And if YOUR doctrine created from ONE or TWO lines of scripture does NOT conform to EVERY OTHER LINE IN THE BOOK, your doctrine is a FALSE doctrine according to SCRIPTURE itself.

If you were BLIND, truly, not figuratively. And NO ONE had EVER told you what a platypus is. But they brought you one and placed it into your hands. Going by your sense of FEEL alone, what you end up BELIEVING you were holding? It's got FEET like a DUCK and a bill like a DUCK but it has HAIR like beaver and claws like a lion. So it MUST be a 'duck-billed, beaver-haired LION, RIGHT? Wrong. it is NONE of the THREE but to that BLIND MAN, it IS exactly what it FEELS like. And they are WRONG except in their OWN MIND.

And then, when I came to you and said, after you had MADE UP YOUR MIND, 'You know, that animal is a 'Duck-Billed Platypus'. You would LAUGH at me. You would say, "Why are you trying to deceive me? I KNOW what I FELT and what I FELT was a "Duck-billed, Beaver skinned LION". And no matter how much I TRIED to convince you otherwise, BECAUSE you had ALREADY made up your MIND, unless someone could actually GIVE YOU SIGHT, you would continue to insist that YOU were RIGHT and I was trying to TRICK you.

It is NO different with scripture. If someone TEACHES you that God is a 'trinity', (which is the ONLY way you could EVER learn of 'trinity'), and then LEADS you to UNDERSTAND it by using 'bits and pieces of the Bible', you aren't likely to SEE it any OTHER way.

But I can ASSURE you, if God had DESIRED men to KNOW 'trinity', it would NOT be a 'mystery' as defined by those that created and introduced it into 'Christianity'. He would not have made it IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW of it's existence EXCEPT through DIVINE Revelation that men TOLD you it had been TO THEM.

He would have CLEARLY stated it IN HIS WORD. His SON would have DELIVERED this "DOCTRINE" if it was MEANT to be DELIVERED by God. The APOSTLES would have EMPHASIZED IT over and over and over again so that there could BE NO DOUBT that 'God' IS' three persons in ONE God. But that is NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Paul wrote WHOLE chapters on the concept of charity, (love). The ENTIRE Bible is a message of LOVE.

And the ENTIRE Bible teaches that God IS ONE. ONLY ONE. While there are angels that dwell with Him, while His Son sits at His right hand, there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. And that God is NOT 'compounded' as far as 'three persons in ONE God'. Only in the minds and hearts of those that FEEL it's TRUE. But it is NOT offered in the Bible. If so, PROVE it. Not to ME. But TO YOURSELF. SEE if you can FIND one line of the Bible that STATES that Father Son and Spirit are THREE persons in ONE God.

Most of you will ignore my words in favor of what you WANT to FEEL. The mere IDEA that you could have been 'led astray' by those that you have placed your faith in is something that you wouldn't even want to contemplate. Heck, WHO LIKES being WRONG? But isn't it OUR responsibility to both GOD and OURSELVES to SEEK the TRUTH? For how are we suppose to worship God IN truth if we don't KNOW the truth to begin with????

I've grown MORE than 'tired' of the 'game' this thread has turned into. I believe EACH of us has pretty much PROVEN ourselves to anyone with the ability to SEE. If you see me attempting to offer you what I KNOW as 'prideful', so be it. You would have probably felt the same way about Christ Himself. "Who is this bone-head trying to tell us that the TRUTH is different than what we have been taught by our Rabies. How DARE this PRIDEFUL man SPEAK in such a manner. WHO does He THINK He IS: GOD? Not OUR God and certainly NOT who He SAYS He is: The Son of God Himself".

If you THINK differently, just LOOK at the manner you have treated ME when trying to reveal the TRUTH.

One, a transgendered individual that doesn't even KNOW whether he's a WOMAN or a MAN. Another that BELIEVES that men are NOT to exhibit authority over women. And what's WORSE, that SHE is NOT to PUT man IN authority OVER her. And then there's Albion who I have much more respect for even though he's been brainwashed into 'trinity' with little TRUE understanding of the doctrine AS it was 'created' by those that introduced it into Christianity'. At least I feel that his intentions are HONORABLE. most of what the transgendered individual has offered were outright FALSE accusations against people that it doesn't even KNOW, (what could be UNDERSTOOD of it's posts). I say IT because I am JUST as confused about it's sexuality as IT is. Can a man REALLY become a WOMAN simply because they WANT to? Or is a man a man regardless of what HE ACTS LIKE?

I close with this and now I'm serious, I'm DONE with this thread. As far as I'm concerned, the Mods SHOULD have closed it LONG before NOW.

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

This is the MYSTERY of the relationship Between God and His Son as offered BY GOD through an apostle. What we are NOT to even THINK is that WE can 'create' a mystery of our OWN through making an idol like 'trinity' that is defined by ART and MAN'S device.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[TheBarrd]

Via con Dios, Magician...
I will be praying for you.

 

[katerinah1947]

Via con Dios, Magician...
I will be praying for you.

Hi,
Yes, I suppose I will depart also.
LOVE and love,
...Katerina.,

 

[2ducklow]

so that just leaves me. cool I like talking to myself.

 

[TheBarrd]

And then there were none...
ahh, well...let me pack up my Bible and head on outta this funny farm...

 

[2ducklow]

And then there were none...
ahh, well...let me pack up my Bible and head on outta this funny farm...

hummmm wonder who she's referring to?????

 

[com7fy8]

Was Jesus physical body created?

I believe yes.

And Hebrews 2:14-15 says,

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So, it does say Jesus shared in "flesh and blood", like "the children". So, I consider this means His body was like that of humans. So, it was created.

By the way, it also says Jesus took on flesh and blood in order to die so He could destroy Satan and deliver us who have been in slavery to Satan, by means of "fear of death". So, it is good to trust in Jesus to do this for us.

Also, this shows that Jesus, even as great as He is, He was willing to come here and share with us and go through things we go through here on this earth . . . so that He could reach us personally and share all His very own with us > including all He claims in prayer > John 17:20-26.

So, Jesus is so humble, not conceited but so generously loving and sharing.

When did God poof into a man?

I would not use the word "poof" when talking about God.

But, in case I understand your question, we are talking about how God became Jesus in Mary's womb.

In Luke 1:34-35, Mary is clear that she is a virgin and so how could she become pregnant with the Messiah? And the angel says the Holy Spirit will "overshadow" her and her Child and "therefore" her Child will be called "the Son of God." So, it is clear, to me, that Jesus is not a human son, but our Father's own Son.

"His body was created, but He was not."

My personal understanding is that the Holy Spirit moved Jesus into Mary's womb. Jesus existed before He was born of Mary > John 17:5. So, God is able to do this. Jesus was spiritual in existence; He so existed before being moved into Mary's womb and living in any cell or cells of the beginning of His body. The Bible does not go into detail about this; so this is my "opinion"

And then . . . in my opinion, again . . . Jesus spiritually grew and developed along with His body which God had created and then developed in her womb. "He needed to grow and develop spiritually along with His physical body so He could function in union with His body while on this earth."

when Mary's egg split into 2 cells? first trimester? 2nd? 3rd? just before Jesus came out of the womb? just after Jesus came out of the womb?

It is clear that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became pregnant with Jesus, by means of the Holy Spirit. I understand that Jesus was Jesus in her as soon as He was within His first flesh and blood cell in her womb. And I consider, as an opinion, that God created a zygote, but the DNA was not from Joseph's seed; but it could have been a match so He would look like a combination of both of his parents > it was God's choice.

I understand that it was meant for Jesus to be in flesh and blood like humans; so it makes sense to me that our Father would have Him outwardly appear like He was the child of Mary and Joseph. But appearance, in such a case, would certainly not be what to go by

If Jesus physical body wasn't created does that mean his physical body existed for all eternity going from a full human body to morphing into a 2 cell embrio, then back to a man?

I have offered what can answer this, already, I think

If Jesus physical body was created , what about his human soul and human spirit? were they created?

Jesus in the womb was Jesus . . . not created. He is called the "only begotton of the Father" (John 1:14). A father does not create his son, but he begets his son. So, for me, this works to support that Jesus is divine.

His body, then, was created, but He with His spirit and soul was not created but begotten. Here is another scripture where Jesus is called "begotten" >

"'No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.'" (John 1:18)

or did the omnipresent god poof into a human spirit and human soul when he poofed into a 2 cell embrio?

I have offered what can explain what I understand about this.

Is the answer to all these questions , "Rotherham is bad bad bad" or is it "2ducklow is Imagican"? which one?

I have nothing against ducks In my album you can find a couple of photos I just shared, here

 

[katerinah1947]

I have pretty much come to ignore your incoherent ramblings.

Wow. Quite the insult.

But, just so you can REST ASSURED:

Not with you, so far. Not with you. I cannot rest nor be assured.

I am NOT a JW.

Sure. Sure.

Never have, never WILL.

Only a few religions, deny the trinity. JW's are one of them. Mormons is another one. Islam is another one. You deny the Trinity. Think man, Think.

I bow to NO 'man made' denomination.

Really?

I worship NO 'man made church'.

Really?

But I can see that you seem to have some sort of problem with the JWs.

Yes they lie.

For you use the word and your insinuated accusation

Statements, not insinuations. If it fits, like Matthew 7:16, then you are that, it is no insinuation. You were supposed to figure that out on your own.

like it is some sort of WEAPON.

You use words and ideas, like weapons and so does Duck.

Do you HATE JWs?

Hate is your word, not mine.

Is it YOUR opinion

Insult. Insult Insult.....

that they are a 'cult' and therefore to be despised

Insult. Insult. Insult....

by YOUR 'church'?


Insult. Insult. Insult....

Really do you hate all those but your church?

Insult Insult Insult.



Do you see YOURSELF as being BETTER than the JWs?

Best insult yet.




just wondering.

Again, you are not wondering. You are not.

Blessings,

Not your kind. Not your kind. No.

MEC

Amazing,
If you hadn't written to me Imagican, accusing me of doing everything Duck and you are doing, rather than I, then I would be gone now. Out of your hair, as all you have to offer is your agenda. You engaged. That is an invitation. I engaged. Your friend insulted. I did not. You postured and insulted. I did not. I stated how your ways matched the ways of others.
LOVE and love,
...Katerina.

 

[Ripheus27]

not quite accurate, also you claim the opposite of what we claim so?

Right, that's why this part of the argument is just step 1.

I explained that. You have refused to deal with my explanation about Jesus being foreknown. So you are refusing to face the fact that Jesus was foreknown. PLUS, the plain meaning of "if you right eye offends you pluck it out" is not what Jesus meant. Jesus didn't mean the plain meaning , pluck out your eye. Everyone knows that, that's why everyone has a nonliteral interpretation of that verse. So your plain reading argument is the only possibility is bogus.

Actually, I don't put much stock in some alleged plain meaning of the Bible almost AT ALL. I'm just arguing from another alternatively-minded poster's perspective a little. Anyway, Jesus as a man could have been foreknown but as the Son foreknowing, or whatever it is you're arguing. I mean, God surely knows what He's doing, so if He's becoming Incarnate, I'd hope He foreknew what would happen when He was Incarnate.

actually there is a saying people hold to , it goes like this. "if the plain sense of scripture makes sense, then don't look for another sense" . Well the plain sense of 'pluck out your eye' doesn't make sense so one should look for another sense to that scripture.

If our eyes were literally causing us to sin, I think it would, in fact, be right to damage or destroy them. What we ought not to take literally in this passage is not its passion, but its application: those attitudes and the like that cause us to sin, or incline us to evil, or whatever, ought to be purified from our souls completely, with all the energy of an act of physical violence.

Likewise the plain sense of "Jesus was slain before he was born" doesn't make sense so one should look for another sense to that scripture that says 'slain before the foundation of the world". and the sense that makes sense is that God foreknew Jesus and in that foreknowledge of God, Jesus was slain before the foundation of God.

If your theory were true, this is what God's POV would look like on the matter:

God
____________Jesus_____________
______________________________________________________________
The creation in time​

This because you've said Jesus is the reason for everything, which means God designed the world so that it would lead to a woman known as Mary giving birth to a man Who would be known as Jesus Christ forever after. So you have God the Father projecting the events of history out of Himself, through His idea of His Son. He's inferring all the things that happen in the world using His Son as an axiom of the system of creation. This is compatible with the axiom itself as created, maybe. But even if it is, it still ends up with the Son existing eternally within the mind of God, and having the creation of the world projected through the Son, with the Son being the Father's own image of Himself. How does this not lead us straight into the doctrine of the Incarnation?

yep. No one has or can show Trinity to be coherent, or mathematically possible. Your arguments are just confusing ramblings.

Unless you can tell me that you know what Cantor's Paradise is, I doubt you should tell me that you know what mathematicians tend to believe, nowadays as much as always. Logicians, too. There's much more to all that than you admit. And you should admit it, because if no one believed what those people believe, no one would have ended up with the mathematics and logic encoded into the computer and the Internet that you're using to argue with us right now. Far from being confused ramblings, these are things as evident as the Pythagorean Theorem, at least to some of us. These are things for which there is objective proof.

Yep so true.

I beg to differ, as the history Imagician has set forth is a narrow perversion of the culture of that era,

never heard any morally correct argument to prove trinity. That's a new one on me.

I meant that even when we show the doctrine wasn't based on paganism, or wasn't believed in for the sake of Greek philosophy, or whatever, the charge is still leveled against the doctrine.

I've never done that, I don't recall anyone doing that, though some might have. I do recall people saying that trinity has a demonic origin, but that's different than saying Trinitarians worship Satan. In my opinion, all false doctrines have at the very least some demonic influence, and all Christians have some false doctrines, but that doesn't make them worshipers of Satan.

I'll admit the last one was kinda a joke. On the other hand, Imagician has expressed concern that I might be manipulating the Bible's words in order to play some kind of text-game or something, some venial impulse that I might be satisfying. And this due to Satanic influence, it has been debated.