Should you believe in the trinity II

[Gareth]

Just thought I'd add to this ongoing debate as to whether God is a trinity or not, and before this thread gets closed down just like the other one did. It seems fascinating that one doctrine that was concieved over 200 years after the last of the Apostles died, that was never taught by the Apostles or by Paul, never confirmed by Jesus or by God his Father, that never appears by name in either the OT or the NT, should still be rumbling on.

Do you want answers to your questions? Do you want closure on this matter? Do you want to have the right to believe in what YOU want to believe in? You are not alone.

Even if you will never become one, Jehovah's Witnesses have a search engine on their website www.watchtower.org that you can place your enquiry into. It's on the right hand side. Place the word trinity into the search box, hit "enter" and you will have all the answers you need.

It won't be what they say. It will be either what historian's, the Catholic Encyclopeadia, other ancient writings or what the Bible, God's Holy Scriptures says. You will be able to draw your own conclusions.
You will not get an instant visit by one for going onto their site. If you are happy with your belief either way, for or against, just remember this. Do you believe everything you are told? Can you defend your faith if asked?

One day you will have too. The UN has an agreement that if religion becomes a threat to world peace and security, and how close that has been on occaision, it will have the power to curtail religions power and influence aroung the globe. Think it will never happen? Think how secular society has become, how without the need for religion it has become. Are you ready for the challenges ahead?

 

[scriptures]

Just thought I'd add to this ongoing debate as to whether God is a trinity or not, and before this thread gets closed down just like the other one did. It seems fascinating that one doctrine that was concieved over 200 years after the last of the Apostles died, that was never taught by the Apostles or by Paul, never confirmed by Jesus or by God his Father, that never appears by name in either the OT or the NT, should still be rumbling on.

Do you want answers to your questions? Do you want closure on this matter? Do you want to have the right to believe in what YOU want to believe in? You are not alone.

Even if you will never become one, Jehovah's Witnesses have a search engine on their website www.watchtower.org that you can place your enquiry into. It's on the right hand side. Place the word trinity into the search box, hit "enter" and you will have all the answers you need.

It won't be what they say. It will be either what historian's, the Catholic Encyclopeadia, other ancient writings or what the Bible, God's Holy Scriptures says. You will be able to draw your own conclusions.
You will not get an instant visit by one for going onto their site. If you are happy with your belief either way, for or against, just remember this. Do you believe everything you are told? Can you defend your faith if asked?

One day you will have too. The UN has an agreement that if religion becomes a threat to world peace and security, and how close that has been on occaision, it will have the power to curtail religions power and influence aroung the globe. Think it will never happen? Think how secular society has become, how without the need for religion it has become. Are you ready for the challenges ahead?

I am one of those non trinitarian who does not belong to the JWs, but I agree with their interpretation regarding who is Jesus....

I use their NWT extensively and compare it to other translations....

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Should you believe in the trinity II

YeshuaMySalvation > No, why should I?

 

[Simonline]

Just thought I'd add to this ongoing debate as to whether God is a trinity or not, and before this thread gets closed down just like the other one did. It seems fascinating that one doctrine that was concieved over 200 years after the last of the Apostles died, that was never taught by the Apostles or by Paul, never confirmed by Jesus or by God his Father, that never appears by name in either the OT or the NT, should still be rumbling on.

You make bold brash statements concerning Church History but you don't substantiate any of them (and you wonder why you're not taken seriously)?! The reason why you don't substantiate your statements is because you can't. Wild baseless statements cannot be ubstantiated. Just because you make wild claims does not mean that your wild claims are true (that's why you have to be able to substantiate any claims you make if you want people to take you seriously).

It simply is not true that the doctrine of the Trinity has no basis in Scripture (which is why Trinitarianism rather than Unitarianism has now been orthodox Christian doctrine for over two millennia (even before it was formally codified as such)) and neither is it true that the Messiah and His first generation Apostles repudiated Trinitarianism in favour of Unitarianism, since the Scriptures teach that there is only one God and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (both individually and collectively) are that one God.

Nowhere in the Scriptures is it taught that only the Father is God, only the Son is God or only the Holy Spirit is God (and I defy any Unitarian heretic to prove me wrong on this point). Therefore, since the Scriptures teach that there is only one God and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are that one God, the only logical conclusion that can be reasonably drawn (on the basis of all the Biblical evidence and not just specific texts, taken out of context and used as a pretext to try and justify one's own theological and philosophical presuppositions) is that there is only one God who is Tri-Personal (Trinitarian) rather than Mono-Personal (Unitarian) in nature. This is what the Messiah and His disciples taught.

Do you want answers to your questions? Do you want closure on this matter? Do you want to have the right to believe in what YOU want to believe in? You are not alone.

And therein lies the crux. This isn't about Absolute Truth (believing what is true) it's about the 'right' to believe in whatever one wants to believe (irrespective of whether it is true or not)?! Truly you are a product of 21st century Western relativism which teaches that 'there is no such thing as absolute truth (i.e. God) there is only personal opinion/choice, all of which is equally valid'(?!)That idea is a lie in the absolute sense. There IS such a thing as absolute truth and it is absolutely NOT true that all beliefs regarding philosophy and theology are completely subjective (i.e. simply a matter of personal opinion) and therefore equally valid. It is for this reason that, like God, Christians are implacably hostile to any and all falsehood. We will not tolerate any idea that God is anything other than how He has revealed Himself through the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (supremely in His Incarnation as the Messiah YHWH/Jesus of Nazareth) i.e. Trinitarian in Nature. Contrary to the anti-Christian spirit of the age, Unitarianism is not a Smorgasboardian 'ligitimate alternative' to Trinitarianism, it is a bare-faced lie that is not true (and can be demonstrated to be so). It does not correspond to the Absolute Reality that is YHWH, the Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Creator God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. God is not just an 'idea' over which to debate. He actually does exist and does not appreciate being misrepresented (He has also declared in His Scriptures that He has set aside a 'Day' when He will judge Mankind for how it has misrepresented Him in order to justify its own supposed 'moral autonomy' and on that 'Day' He will let rebellious Mankind know (in no uncertain terms) exactly what He thinks of them).

Even if you will never become one, Jehovah's Witnesses have a search engine on their website www.watchtower.org that you can place your enquiry into. It's on the right hand side. Place the word trinity into the search box, hit "enter" and you will have all the answers you need.

Beware! The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) is a Christian-based cult that indoctrinates its membership through its own publications ('The Watchtower', 'Awake!' etc.) including their own version of the Bible 'The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures' which has been produced in order to reflect the false teachings of the cult. It has been deliberately translated in such a way as to be consistent with the presuppositional theology of the organization and to be awkward, cumbersome and difficult to read (thereby making it easier for the organization to force (oops! sorry, 'encourage') its membership to only read the Bible in conjunction with the publications of the WBTS (thereby monolithically indoctrinating it's membership (so that they all think and believe the same way/thing) and maintaining its totalitarian and coersive control over its membership.

The WBTS will only tell you their own 'party-line' which as any Christian will tell you, is totally different (and antithetical) to the Biblical Truth.

Should you wish to know more about the WBTS (from an honest objective perspective) then I strongly recommend the book Kingdom Of The Cults by the late Walter Ralston Martin, forward by Ravi Zacharias http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cults-Walter-Martin/dp/0764228218

Walter R. Martin http://www.waltermartin.com/ was the founder of the Christian Research Institute, an organization founded to research Judeo-Christian-based cults and non-Judeo-Christian based religions and cults in order to evaluate them from an orthodox Evangelical Biblical perspective. Martin was a man of utter integrity who fastidiously always went to source (i.e. directly to the organisations themselves) for his information rather than from widespread hear-say among Christians about the organizations. He would always honestly and thoroughly critique both the history and the official writings of each organization he investigated and then make his findings available to the wider Christian community so that they might be educated as to the history and teachings of the respective organizations and religions.

His book Kingdom Of The Cults is considered by many Christians (myself included) to be the definitive book on false cults and religions.

If you don't want to buy the book as an invaluable addition to your reference library then you can always take it out on loan from your local public lending library.

It won't be what they say. It will be either what historian's, the Catholic Encyclopeadia, other ancient writings or what the Bible, God's Holy Scriptures says. You will be able to draw your own conclusions.

When the WBTS quote sources other than the WBTS you can rest assured that those carefully selected quotations will be in strict accordance with the WBTS 'party-line'. Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that any and every Bible quote is ligitimate. It isn't. It is possible to misquote the Bible out of context in the same way that it is possible to misquote any other text out of context in order justify one's own argument Remember the Messiah's temptation in the wilderness - Satan tempted the Messiah by quoting Scripture?! Just because an argument is Biblically based does not mean that it is also Biblically sound (i.e. consistent with what the Scriptures actually teach)!

You will not get an instant visit by one for going onto their site. If you are happy with your belief either way, for or against, just remember this. Do you believe everything you are told? Can you defend your faith if asked?

By visiting the site of a Judeo-Christian based cult you are (especially if your own faith is not rooted in YHWH, incarnate as the Messiah, and His truth that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (as accepted by all the different major denominations of mainstream Judeo-Christianity)) opening yourself to the possibility of being deceived by the Evil One such that you will eventually end up in everlasting perdition. It simply is not true that all religious beliefs are equally true or equally valid and that it really doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. We are not redeemed on the basis of sincerity because it's possible to be sincerely wrong. No, we are redeemed on the basis of our faith (obedient trust) in the Truth that (unlike the theology and prophetic timing of the WBTS) does not change.

One day you will have too. The UN has an agreement that if religion becomes a threat to world peace and security, and how close that has been on occaision, it will have the power to curtail religions power and influence aroung the globe. Think it will never happen? Think how secular society has become, how without the need for religion it has become. Are you ready for the challenges ahead?

Judeo-Christianity is no stranger to persecution from totalitarian regimes of any and every political persuasion. Have you never heard that 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church'? Persecution is a wonderful tool for getting rid of dead wood within the Church and causing the saints that remain to grow through adversity as they earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude.1:3) their love for the truth (Jn.14:6) being far stronger than that of their love for their own lives (or those of their loved ones).

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I am one of those non trinitarian who does not belong to the JWs, but I agree with their interpretation regarding who is Jesus....

I use their NWT extensively and compare it to other translations....

Then I'm afraid you're either being deceived or (more likely) deceiving yourself (see above)

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

YeshuaMySalvation > No, why should I?

Because it is the Truth, that's why. The basis of salvation is ongoing living faith in that which is actually true, not in that which we would like to be true because it fits more comfortably with our own personal preferences and predilictions.

Simonline.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Because it is the Truth, that's why.

It is your word against mine. What if i say it is not true? Scripture doesn't say that my salvation depends on the Trinity. Acts 4: 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Notice the above in red; i don't need to call the name of the Trinity to be saved but Mashiyach!

The basis of salvation is ongoing living faith in that which is actually true, not in that which we would like to be true because it fits more comfortably with our own personal preferences and predilictions. Simonline.

Simonline. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in scripture. To say that i must accept your theological term Trinity as divine truth is only a lesser degree of what Islam does in converting people into there religion by force. If you don't convert , holy war! Please show one passage in scripture that says i must accept your trinity by force or if not I'm damned???

 

[Goya]

Because it is the Truth, that's why. The basis of salvation is ongoing living faith in that which is actually true, not in that which we would like to be true because it fits more comfortably with our own personal preferences and predilictions.

Simonline.

Shalom Simonline!

I disagree with your statement. How can it be the Truth as you say without scripture support? How can the trinity be the truth if the word Trinity is found no where in the tanakh(old test.) and in the brit hadasha(new test.). Besides.. where did you get this Trinity thingy majingy from??

 

[Kris10leigh]

Do you want answers to your questions? Do you want closure on this matter? Do you want to have the right to believe in what YOU want to believe in? You are not alone.

You know, I actually don't want answers to my questions. Not this one anyway. I don't believe in the Trinity, but I do believe that NO ONE but God has the answer to it. No human (seriously, no human) can say with definitive certainty that the trinity is truth. Neither can one say it isn't. And that's why the debate itself is so very amusing to me.

So, no, I don't want closure on the matter until I meet God upon my demise. But yes, I do believe I have the right to believe what I believe.
</IMG>

 

[Simonline]

It is your word against mine. What if i say it is not true? Scripture doesn't say that my salvation depends on the Trinity. Acts 4: 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

No, it isn't my word against yours at all. Your denial of that truth does not make that truth false anymore than God would disappear in a puff of smoke if you suddenly decided not to believe in Him any more (?!). Truth by His very Nature is both Eternal and Immutable (Jn.14:6) and therefore does not change to suit the prevailing opinion.

Why do you think that the Scriptures declare that 'salvation is to be found in no-one else for there is no other name given amongst men whereby they MUST be saved' especially when those same Scriptures also declare that YHWH, and YHWH alone, is our ONLY saviour (Isa.43:10-13)?

The answer is because the Messiah is none other than YHWH Himself, incarnate as a human creature - God, as a man. Now that is absolutely impossible unless YHWH is Trinitarian in Nature. The Father and the Spirit have NOT incarnated as human creatures but the Son has. Again, this is absolutely impossible for a Mono-Personal God [One Entity - One Person] but perfectly possible for the One True God who is Tri-Personal [One Entity - Three Persons] in Nature.

If this is not the case then why does the apostle Paul exhort the elders of the Church in Ephesus to 'Be shepherds of the Church of God which He [God] bought with His own blood' (Acts.20:28(b)).


Just because the Scriptures do not use the theological terminology that was developed much later by the Christian Church (4th century) does not mean that the concepts which the theological terminology seeks to convey are not consistent with the Scriptural revelation since the witness of Scripture declares otherwise.

Notice the above in red; i don't need to call the name of the Trinity to be saved but Mashiyach!

Simonline. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in scripture. To say that i must accept your theological term Trinity as divine truth is only a lesser degree of what Islam does in converting people into there religion by force. If you don't convert , holy war! Please show one passage in scripture that says i must accept your trinity by force or if not I'm damned???

Then explain the contradiction between Isa.43:10-13 and Acts.4:12 and what Paul meant by God [i.e. YHWH] 'buying the Church with His own blood'?!

Simonline.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

[/color][/size][/font]

No, it isn't my word against yours at all. Your denial of that truth does not make that truth false anymore than God would disappear in a puff of smoke if you suddenly decided not to believe in Him any more (?!). Truth by His very Nature is both Eternal and Immutable (Jn.14:6) and therefore does not change to suit the prevailing opinion.

Why do you think that the Scriptures declare that 'salvation is to be found in no-one else for there is no other name given amongst men whereby they MUST be saved' especially when those same Scriptures also declare that YHWH and YHWH alone is our ONLY saviour (Isa.43:10-13)?

The answer is because the Messiah is YHWH Himself, incarnate as a human creature - God, as a man. Now that is absolutely impossible unless YHWH is Trinitarian in Nature. The Father and the Spirit have NOT incarnated as human creatures but the Son has. Again, this is absolutely impossible for a Mono-Personal God [One Entity - One Person] but possible for the One God who is Tri-Personal [One Entity - Three Persons].

If this is not the case then why does the apostle Paul exhort the Ephesian Church elders to 'Be shepherds of the Church of God which He [God] bought with His own blood' (Acts.20:28(b)).

Just because the Scriptures do not use the theological terminology that was developed much later by the Christian Church (4th century) does not mean that the concepts which the theological terminology seeks to convey are not Biblical since the Scriptural evidence declares otherwise.

Notice the above in red; i don't need to call the name of the Trinity to be saved but Mashiyach!

Simonline. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in scripture. To say that i must accept your theological term Trinity as divine truth is only a lesser degree of what Islam does in converting people into there religion by force. If you don't convert , holy war! Please show one passage in scripture that says i must accept your trinity by force or if not I'm damned???

Then explain the contradiction between Isa.43:10-13 and Acts.4:12 and what Paul meant by God [i.e. YHWH] buying the Church with His own blood?!

Simonline.

What you have erected is a Strawman. I never denied Mashiyach is YHVH!

 

[2ducklow]

Bystander note here in reference to acts 20.28 as to what it literally says.

(Rotherham) Acts 20:28 Be taking heed unto yourselves, and unto all the little flock in which the Holy Spirit hath set, you, as overseers,--to be shepherding the assembly of God which he hath acquired through means of the blood of his own.

it is a matter of interpretation to change it to 'his own blood'. Blood of his own could mean and most probably does, the blood of his own son. His own was a term of endearment much like beloved, in those days, at least according to some scholars.

However, there are some problems with taking this passage as a definite reference to Jesus as God, not the least of which is the fact that there are several variant readings in the extant manuscripts (MSS). Some MSS read "the church of the Lord"(1) as opposed to "the church of God," while other, later MSS combine both readings together so that we have "the church of the Lord and God." There is also a debate whether to translate dia tou haimatos tou idiou as "which he obtained with his own blood" or "which he obtained with the blood of his own." The translation "the blood of his own" can imply that it wasn&#8217;t the blood of God that purchased the Church, but the blood of one dear to God, such as a child or more specifically his beloved Son. As noted by the NET translators:

114tn Or "with his own blood"; Grk "with the blood of his own." The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning "his own blood"; or (2) as a possessive genitive, "with the blood of his own." In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, "The Blood of God," CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408. (Source)​

.............................​

There is evidence from the NT that the expression tou idiou can refer to persons intimately connected to someone, as a term of endearment or to near relations:

"He [Jesus] came to his own (ta idia), and his own people (hoi idioi) did not receive him." John 1:11​

"Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own (tous idious) who were in the world, he loved them to the end." John 13:1​

"On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people (tous idious) and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them." Acts 4:23 NIV​

​

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Shamoun/blood_of_god.htm​

and uh this was from a JEsus is God site. possiblyand probably trinitarian. So even they admit acts 20.28 is no proof positive of Jesus being God. too iffy.

so translating john 1.11 the way acts 20.28 is translated by trinitarians we get, "He came to himself and himself did not receive him>"
or john 13.1

"having loved himself who were in the world (were is a singluar plural verb that is singular acting plually.)

or "Peter a
​

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Bystander note here in reference to acts 20.28 as to what it literally says.

(Rotherham) Acts 20:28 Be taking heed unto yourselves, and unto all the little flock in which the Holy Spirit hath set, you, as overseers,--to be shepherding the assembly of God which he hath acquired through means of the blood of his own.

it is a matter of interpretation to change it to 'his own blood'. Blood of his own could mean and most probably does, the blood of his own son. His own was a term of endearment much like beloved, in those days, at least according to some scholars.

I know Sam Shamoun very well. He is indeed a Trinitarian

 

[Simonline]

Shalom Simonline!

I disagree with your statement. How can it be the Truth as you say without scripture support? How can the trinity be the truth if the word Trinity is found no where in the tanakh(old test.) and in the brit hadasha(new test.). Besides.. where did you get this Trinity thingy majingy from??

Don't fall into the trap set by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (amongst others)?! Just because specific theological terminology cannot be found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures does not mean that the concepts which the terminology conveys are false.

Authentic Judeo-Christian theology is based upon exegesis rather than eisegesis. That means that is based on the complete revelation of Scripture rather than selected partial revelations that are carefully marshalled to make it appear that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are declaring something that is actually contrary to that which they ARE actually declaring (the essence of eisegesis). Just because something is based upon the Bible does not necessarily mean that it is consistent with the Bible. During His temptation in the wilderness, the Messiah was assailed by the Evil One who, through His dishonest use of the Scriptures, sought to tempt the Messiah.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Scociety likes to indoctrinate its members into believing that God is Mono-Personal [one entity - one person] just like His corporeal human creatures. The Society does this by citing only those Scriptural texts that declare that there is only One True God, that the Father is the One True God and that the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, is a human creature (all of which is absolutely true) whilst deliberately (not to mention deceitfully and dishonestly) either ignoring or refuting [unsuccessfully, I might add, against anyone who truly knows and can use the Scriptures in the way that the Messiah did, against the Evil One, during His temptation in the wilderness] those Scriptural texts that declare that the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is also the One True God and that the Messiah is also the Eternal Divine Creator as well as a temporal human creature.

The Society also indoctrinates its members by telling them that they must only study the Bible (specifically, their own translation - The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures - which has been deliberately and dishonestly translated in such a way as to make it very awkward and cumbersome to both read and study (but making it easy to inculcate the Society's 'party line' into its membership through the massive quantities of their own other publications such as the Watchtower and Awake magazines etc. which they use as the 'filter' through which their own version of the 'Christian' Scriptures must be read and studied so that the membership will be carefully innoculated against the truth and incarcerated into heresy).

Except for the grace of YHWH, the membership of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society don't stand a chance against such a ruthless, highly organized and highly efficient system.

If the Scriptures emphatically and unequivocally declare that there is only One True God, that the Father is the One True God, that the Son is the One True God and that the Holy Spirit is the One True God, not only so but that nowhere do the Scriptures emphatically and unequivocally declare (or even imply or infer) that only the Father is the One True God, that only the Son is the One True God or that only the Holy Spirit is the One True God then the only reasonable conclusion, based upon all the Scriptural evidence (and not just those parts specifically selected to make it appear that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures actually support someone's (or some organization's) metaphysical and theological presuppositions when, in truth, they don't) is that there is only One True God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e. Tri-Personal in Nature) and that, since the Judeo-Christian Church has steadfastly upheld this truth since her inception (in the teeth of much serious heretical opposition (which is why she developed her creeds in order to strengthen and encourage the faithful)), the onus is clearly upon those who deny this truth to legitimately demonstrate (Q.E.D.), from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, that the Tri-Personal Nature of God cannot be found in the Scriptures [by showing, from the Scriptures, where it is explicitly and unequivocally declared that only the Father is the One True God, only the Son is the One True God or only the Holy Spirit is the One True God?!] and that, therfore, Trinitarianism is false, whilst Unitarianism is true, rather than the orthodox Judeo-Christian Church to have to justify her doctrine of the Trinity to every subsequent generation?!

As a young Christian I was taught not only to learn what the Scriptures teach (since, in this at least, I am no different from any member of a heretical cult) but also, and especially, to learn what the Scriptures also teach (and in this respect I am marked out and distinguished from a member of a cult as one who has both studied and knows the Scriptures, such that, on the basis of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures alone, I can distinguish between the Truth and heretical indoctrination that is deliberately constructed to look and sound like the Truth but which is in fact a false counterfeit of the Truth specifically designed to ensnare the ignorant and the guilible).

The doctrine of the Trinity is orthodox Judeo-Christian teaching that has always been taught through the Scriptures though many unbelieving Jews and Gentiles have chosen to reject the Biblical Witness (both the Tanakh and the Brit Hadassah) prefering instead to believe in a Mono-Personal idol (which is why we make the distinction between Biblically-based Judaism which upholds the truth of the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH and Rabinically-based Judaism which denies it. Now, there are many mittigating circumstances for why Rabinically-based Judaism has chosen to deny the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH (not least of which is two millennia of institutionalized Gentile Christian anti-semitism, which is still around, even today, though today it is uniting with the world, and re-inventing itself as 'anti-Zionism') but that does not justify it.

The Judeo-Christian Church implacably insists upon adherence to the Tri-Personal Nature of the One True God because it is the absolute Truth and anyone who, whilst knowing the Truth, refuses to uphold it, cannot be accepted into or continue in fellowship as a true believer, within the Body of the Messiah, since they are denying something that is foundational to the very essence of Judeo-Christianity (i.e. essential the Nature of YHWH Himself).

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

You know, I actually don't want answers to my questions. Not this one anyway. I don't believe in the Trinity, but I do believe that NO ONE but God has the answer to it. No human (seriously, no human) can say with definitive certainty that the trinity is truth. Neither can one say it isn't. And that's why the debate itself is so very amusing to me.

Nothing could be further from the Truth. The idea that no-one but God Himself knows whether or not He is Tri-Personal or Mono-Personal in Nature is a lie. God, through the Word, has revealed Himself as Tri-Personal and He expects us to both uphold and proclaim that Truth to the world as something that is both Eternally and Immutably Absolute Reality. It is not up for discussion or debate (as if the majority opinion of sinful finite human creatures could change the very Nature of Absolute Reality (how imbecilically arrogant we are)?!)

And neither should you think that you can hide behind your culpable agnosticism either. Since YHWH has revealed Himself to Mankind He will hold to account any and all who refuse to believe the Truth of His own revelation about Himself.

So, no, I don't want closure on the matter until I meet God upon my demise. But yes, I do believe I have the right to believe what I believe.

If you wait until your Day of Judgment to get closure on the matter then you will be in catastrophic trouble form which there will be no escape. You can believe what you like about your rights but the truth is that the only thing to which you have a 'God-given' right is Divine Justice. Since YHWH has revealed Himself to us as essentially Tri-Personal in Nature and commands us to both believe and live by the Truth (i.e. that which is true) rather than our own personal preferences (i.e. that which is false) then, on our Day of Judgment, Divine Justice will be all that we can ever hope to expect for our willful disobedience in refusing to believe the Truth that Truth Himself has revealed (Jn.1:1,14; Jn.14:6; Jn.17:3, 17).

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

What you have erected is a Strawman. I never denied Mashiyach is YHVH!

Nothing could be further from the truth. Orthodox Judeo-Christian doctrine teaches that YHWH is Tri-Personal in Nature [i.e. Trinitarian] and that He has incarnated as a human creature [i.e. the Messiah] who is ONE PERSON simultaneously existing in TWO (mutually exclusive) WAYS as TWO (distinct but NOT separate) NATURES - One as the Eternal and Immutable Divine Creator, the other as a temporal and mutable human creature - which the Church defines as the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Judeo-Christian Christology is 'joined at the hip' with Judeo-Christian Theology that is essentially Trinitarian in Nature. One cannot consistently believe that the Messiah is YHWH Himself, incarnate as a man whilst also believing that YHWH is only Mono-Personal [i.e. Unitarian] in Nature?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Bystander note here in reference to acts 20.28 as to what it literally says.

(Rotherham) Acts 20:28 Be taking heed unto yourselves, and unto all the little flock in which the Holy Spirit hath set, you, as overseers,--to be shepherding the assembly of God which he hath acquired through means of the blood of his own.

it is a matter of interpretation to change it to 'his own blood'. Blood of his own could mean and most probably does, the blood of his own son. His own was a term of endearment much like beloved, in those days, at least according to some scholars.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Shamoun/blood_of_god.htm​

and uh this was from a JEsus is God site. possiblyand probably trinitarian. So even they admit acts 20.28 is no proof positive of Jesus being God. too iffy.​

so translating john 1.11 the way acts 20.28 is translated by trinitarians we get, "He came to himself and himself did not receive him>"​

or john 13.1​

"having loved himself who were in the world (were is a singluar plural verb that is singular acting plually.)​

or "Peter a​

No comment

Simonline.

 

[Kris10leigh]

Simon, I admire your drive, I truly do. But considering the mountains of evidence both for and against the idea of a triune God, I find it rather bold of you to say that I am "imbecilically arrogant" when I am willing to admit that either one of us may be right.

And you get that I am agnostic is rather beyond me.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Nothing could be further from the Truth. The idea that no-one but God Himself knows whether or not He is Tri-Personal or Mono-Personal in Nature is a lie. God, through the Word, has revealed Himself as Tri-Personal and He expects us to both uphold and proclaim that Truth to the world as something that is both Eternally and Immutably Absolute Reality. It is not up for discussion or debate (as if the majority opinion of sinful finite human creatures could change the very Nature of Absolute Reality (how imbecilically arrogant we are)?!)

Ok, so why don't you show us from scripture this Tripersonal being. You have repeated the words "Tripersonal"but have not provided any scriptural evidence for the term itself which happens to be completely absent.

And neither should you think that you can hide behind your culpable agnosticism either. Since YHWH has revealed Himself to Mankind He will hold to account any and all who refuse to believe the Truth of His own revelation about Himself.

As far as i know she hasn't stated she is agnostic. Why should you judge someone like that?

If you wait until your Day of Judgment to get closure on the matter then you will be in catastrophic trouble form which there will be no escape. You can believe what you like about your rights but the truth is that the only thing to which you have a 'God-given' right is Divine Justice.

No one here has to believe in a silly term to be saved. Our salvation is not dependent of a term, Tripersonal in this case.

Since YHWH has revealed Himself to us as essentially Tri-Personal in Nature and commands us to both believe and live by the Truth (i.e. that which is true) rather than our own personal preferences (i.e. that which is false) then, on our Day of Judgment, Divine Justice will be all that we can ever hope to expect for our willful disobedience in refusing to believe the Truth that Truth Himself has revealed (Jn.1:1,14; Jn.14:6; Jn.17:3, 17).

Simonline.

Actually, none of the passages you presented prove that God is subdivided. John chapter 1 shows that God's speech is no different then him considering that Logos is the equivalent of the Aramic Memra and the hebrew dabar. What does logos mean? Speech, expressions of thought, it means the thinking or the faculty of reason. What logos is not? Logos is not a person separate and distinced from God. So no, John chapter 1 does not support your tripersonal view of the eternal considering that no trinity is mentioned.

 

[Simonline]

Simon, I admire your drive, I truly do. But considering the mountains of evidence both for and against the idea of a triune God, I find it rather bold of you to say that I am "imbecilically arrogant"when I am willing to admit that either one of us may be right.

And you get that I am agnostic is rather beyond me.

I'm sorry but I simply do not accept that there are 'mountains of evidence both for and against the idea of a triune God' as if the evidence is inconclusive either way. If that is the case then the Evil One has done a tremendous job in obfuscating the Truth such that we can now nolonger distinguish between Truth and falsehood. If that is true then there is no hope for any of us. We are all sons of Perdition, destined for the everlasting Lake of Fire?!

I did not say that you personally were imbecilically arrogant. What I said was that 'we' (i.e. we sinful and rebellious human race) were imbecilically arrogant in thinking that we could redefine Truth through changing peoples' opinions about it as being subjective opinion rather than objective reality.

By declaring that no-one but God knows whether or not He is essentially Tri-Personal or Mono-Personal in Nature you are effectively declaring that the essential Nature of God is purely a matter of agnosticism (i.e. that no human can know either way with any degree of certainty)?! The truth is that God has seen to it (through His revelation that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) that that is NOT the case and that He expects everyone who is aware of and has access to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to make the effort to find out one way or another through diligent and honest study (2Tim.2:15) and not just ignore the issue because it is either too complex or too controversial (or both) and then take the easy way out by declaring that 'only God knows' which is precisely what the Evil One wants us to do (on the false principle of 'the more Scripturally ignorant we are the less morally accountable we will be')

Simonline.