Should you believe in the trinity II

[Kris10leigh]

I've followed this thread for a while. I have been hesitant to post because, after reading the thread, I perceive this subject as being fraught with anger and emotion.

I agree, and yet if you can get past the emotions and the anger it has been a fascinating discussion! I'm glad you joined us!

 

[virtualgirl]

I agree, and yet if you can get past the emotions and the anger it has been a fascinating discussion! I'm glad you joined us!

Thank you, Kris.

I might just lurk again, but if a question comes up I'll post.

 

[2ducklow]

I agree, and yet if you can get past the emotions and the anger it has been a fascinating discussion! I'm glad you joined us!

Gee I wonder who the angry people are you are refering too??????

 

[Kris10leigh]

Gee I wonder who the angry people are you are refering too??????

Hey now...

I didn't refer to any angry person in particular. But something about religious discussions tends to bring about anger.

 

[2ducklow]

Hey now...

I didn't refer to any angry person in particular. But something about religious discussions tends to bring about anger.

yea that's why people avoid discussing religon and politics. probably none of us in here would discuss these things face to face, the ananimoty of the internet enables us, which can be positive or negative, depending on what we make of it. However some exercise more self control than others in here and in real life.

 

[Kris10leigh]

yea that's why people avoid discussing religon and politics. probably none of us in here would discuss these things face to face, the ananimoty of the internet enables us, which can be positive or negative, depending on what we make of it. However some exercise more self control than others in here and in real life.

Yes, I have learned with whom I can discuss religion in the real world. I have actually found atheists to be the most understanding and level headed!

I love a good religious debate/discussion.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

I've followed this thread for a while. I have been hesitant to post because, after reading the thread, I perceive this subject as being fraught with anger and emotion.

Anyway, I am not here to dissuade anyone from their interpretation of Scripture. I just have a sincere question.

Simonline you said:

This is very confusing to me. You are talking about Jesus and the Messiah as if they are two separate persons.

You said the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth. I understand that and agree. But, what I don't understand are your other points:

1. Jesus isn't Divine he's only human, but the Messiah is both Divine and human.
2. Jesus is not God, but the Messiah is both God and man.

How can Jesus be both Divine, yet not Divine; not God, yet both God and man?

I am not trying to start an argument, I sincerely want to understand your reasoning.

Hi Virtual Girl. You see, Simonline has a lot of Jealousy for the truth. Yet statements like the above completely throw me off. And when i ask questions concerning those statements, he feels like i'm personally attacking him, and considers me as not wanting to make any honest efforts in understanding, thus all my arguments are discarded with a nice big and bold heretic.

What i think he wants to say with the above is an illusion to the fact that Mashiyach is said to literally be in the bosom of the Father present tense, while simultaneously being on earth at the time John 1:18! But the fact that the text reads as such, only means that Yeshua was actually divine and human, not that he was both not divine and man, while simultaneously being eternally divine and man!

 

[virtualgirl]

Thank you for your response.

Hi Virtual Girl. You see, Simonline has a lot of Jealousy for the truth. Yet statements like the above completely throw me off. And when i ask questions concerning those statements, he feels like i'm personally attacking him, and considers me as not wanting to make any honest efforts in understanding, thus all my arguments are discarded with a nice big and bold heretic.

I just want to understand, too.

What i think he wants to say with the above is an illusion to the fact that Mashiyach is said to literally be in the bosom of the Father present tense, while simultaneously being on earth at the time John 1:18!

But the fact that the text reads as such, only means that Yeshua was actually divine and human, not that he was both not divine and man, while simultaneously being eternally divine and man!

(Now, take me by the hand and walk me slowly through this. )

Who is "Mashiyach" and how does he differ from Yeshua?

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

I'm not trying to attack you, Simonline. I just want to understand.

OOps, i think we made a mistake. i am not Simonline, i am Yeshua My Salvation. I would also love to understand what does Simonline actually mean when he makes statements as such!

[ (Now, take me by the hand and walk me slowly through this. )

Who is "Mashiyach" and how does he differ from Yeshua?

Mashiyach is Yeshua. And when he walked the earth he was both completely man and completely God, not eternally human and eternally divine, while in his temporal state he was only human and not divine.

 

[virtualgirl]

OOps, i think we made a mistake. i am not Simonline, i am Yeshua My Salvation. I would also love to understand what does Simonline actually mean when he makes statements as such!



Mashiyach is Yeshua. And when he walked the earth he was both completely man and completely God, not eternally human and eternally divine, while in his temporal state he was only human and not divine.

Oh, my. I realized that you might think my comment to Simonline was meant for you so I deleted it -- apparently too late. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

If Mashiyach and Yeshua are the same person, does each name convey a different meaning?

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Oh, my. I realized that you might think my comment to Simonline was meant for you so I deleted it -- apparently too late. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

If Mashiyach and Yeshua are the same person, does each name convey a different meaning?

Yes certainly, Mashiyach should be translated as anointed and Yeshua which is transliterated into the Greek as Ishu should be translated as Salvation, for he is our Salvation!

 

[LUNABELLA]

No, because Jesus is NOT God. It is the Messiah who is both God and man (Divine and human). As Divine, the Messiah is YHWH (the one (and only) true God), whilst, as human, the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth.

What you are promoting is very similar to Nestorianism which is a heresy. You are saying that Jesus was not God in his Temporal state only human. Meaning that as Nesterious argued that Jesus divinity was separated from his humanity which makes it two different beings with separate natures, You are also arguing that Christ was not God nor divine only man. Your argument as Nesterious arguments posses a serious threat on the atonement because if Jesus was only a man while the heavenly Messiah was divine, then we can never tell if the real Messiah truly suffered for the sins of the world. You are separating there natures with your argument as Nesterious did! Your line of argumentation is not biblical, it's heretical and dangerous! Take a look at the below link and reconsider this.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/nestorianism.htm

No! It doesn't! That's what the heretics want you to think, but it isn't true. You are very easily mislead.

Do point fingers at others when your argumentation has also been considered a heresy, it is a remodified form of Nestorianism, but it is still Nestorianism.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

What you are promoting is very similar to Nestorianism which is a heresy. You are saying that Jesus was not God in his Temporal state only human. Meaning that as Nesterious argued that Jesus divinity was separated from his humanity which makes it two different beings with separate natures, You are also arguing that Christ was not God nor divine only man. Your argument as Nesterious arguments posses a serious threat on the atonement because if Jesus was only a man while the heavenly Messiah was divine, then we can never tell if the real Messiah truly suffered for the sins of the world. You are separating there natures with your argument as Nesterious did! Your line of argumentation is not biblical, it's heretical and dangerous! Take a look at the below link and reconsider this.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/nestorianism.htm​

Hey Wifey. Everything was considered heretical in the fifth century by a very anti-semitic Christianity that existed then. Of-course, it was everything said that did not quite conform with there line of reasoning and/or undermined there teachings. For instances, take that link that you've presented and read Nesterious argument regarding Mary not being the mother of God as state by the author >

Nestorianism refused to call the Virgin Mary "Mother of God" (Theotokos), since her son, Jesus, was born as a human being.

I as Nesterious, would also refuse to call Mary Theotokos for she is not the mother of God. God is form everlasting to everlasting, without beginning and without ending. God did not originate from Mary. It was the pagan belief in Semiramis as the mother of the Sun god that was adopted by Christianity and incorporated into there doctrine only disguised as Mary the Mother of God. It's like they say, when someone has built a gorgeous castle out of there teachings, those who come with something totally out of the ordinary are seen strange for they are destroying that castle from it's very foundation, no one wants there beautiful castle to be uprooted.
​

Do point fingers at others when your argumentation has also been considered a heresy, it is a remodified form of Nestorianism, but it is still Nestorianism.

We are going to discuss this when you get home from work. Nesterious didn't have it alright just like many of us still don't. Those who think they have it all correct are the ones that need to analyze further. I learn something new about scripture everyday, it maybe true of everyone else here as well!

 

[2ducklow]

What you are promoting is very similar to Nestorianism which is a heresy. You are saying that Jesus was not God in his Temporal state only human. Meaning that as Nesterious argued that Jesus divinity was separated from his humanity which makes it two different beings with separate natures, You are also arguing that Christ was not God nor divine only man. Your argument as Nesterious arguments posses a serious threat on the atonement because if Jesus was only a man while the heavenly Messiah was divine, then we can never tell if the real Messiah truly suffered for the sins of the world. You are separating there natures with your argument as Nesterious did! Your line of argumentation is not biblical, it's heretical and dangerous! Take a look at the below link and reconsider this.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/nestorianism.htm

Do point fingers at others when your argumentation has also been considered a heresy, it is a remodified form of Nestorianism, but it is still Nestorianism.

ah trinity turning in on itself. one brand of trinity is heretical the other isn't. Can't wait to see simonline respond by calling you a heretic as proof that you are wrong. But then heresy isn't a biblicall word so it don't matter if anyone goes hog wild calling people heretics to prove trinity, cause it means nothing in the eyes of God.

 

[2ducklow]

ah never mind

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

my wife and me are in 100 percent accord on doctrine. course that's cause we got the correct doctrine and you guys don't, but that's another topic.

Well, we still get along just fine with our differences. The fact that you and your wife are completely in accord on doctrine doesn't mean you have the correct doctrine. I have many Mormon friends that are married and are completely in accord doctrinally with there wives. Of-course that doesn't mean they have the true doctrine! The same applies to Jehovah's Witness and many other sects in Christianity and Judaism.

ah never mind

You know you felt like saying that. I think is a very good thing that i am opened minded. I can never be a slave to an organization.

 

[Kris10leigh]

Just to throw in my two cents on partnership of doctrines...

My husband and I do not agree about the trinity. He does believe in the trinity and I do not. But I have done a lot more research than he!

 

[2ducklow]

ah never mind again.

 

[2ducklow]

Just to throw in my two cents on partnership of doctrines...

My husband and I do not agree about the trinity. He does believe in the trinity and I do not. But I have done a lot more research than he!

Personally I find it absoutely amazing that any one could possibly believe the trinity. It just boggles my mind that intelligent people could and do buy into it.

 

[Kris10leigh]

Personally I find it absoutely amazing that any one could possibly believe the trinity. It just boggles my mind that intelligent people could and do buy into it.

Oh, I don't know. That's a bit harsh. The church teaches trinity. If it isn't there already, it's imprinted on the brain in the 8th grade in confirmation classes, the age that just precedes the questioning of authority. I remember it well. I DID question authority. I didn't understand back then and I asked questions and for this was not allowed to come back to confirmation class! And I was a really good kid!

We're taught to just have faith and that it's wrong to believe otherwise. It takes a very strong person to stand up to such dogma. (Or stubborness in my case. )