Trinity is wrong.

[Ichabod 2]

I didn't intend to offer you scripture until I was sure you would understand my point of view first. Given this rather strange and completely irrelevant response I'm not convinced it is a wise use of my time to talk scripture with someone who didn't even get point 1. first. I leave you to your own eisegesis and authority.

I do understand your point of view; you are blinded by your tradition.

You explain to me in the light of scripture why my response is so irrelevant.

If anyone is reading anything into God’s Word is you die heart traditionalist who are just like the Jews in Jesus day . So much that is taught in religion today is from tradition and not revelation as you tried to point out but were so off the mark; there is a pattern in the Bible when it comes to the word tradition; it is not spoken of in a positive light.

What is revelation to you; something you pick out of the air? Revelation to me is God revealing a truth by His Word and spirit; those little hidden morsels right in front of your nose and you never saw it; until someone revealed it to you and for the first time it became real. Revelation is not a long dead doctrine of religion that men cannot explain by God's Word. The Bible is so full of these little mysteries. The problem is when men follow tradition they are just like the Jews; that is all they see the old wine, yesterday manna and reject revelation.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

[ContraMundum]

I do understand your point of view; you are blinded by your tradition.

Wow...really? I had no idea...quick...give me your church's telephone number so I can ring your pastor and finally discover "the truth" about my tradition and how it's blinded me...then I can join you in the fight against 20 centuries of Christianity....

OK?

You explain to me in the light of scripture why my response is so irrelevant.

Your response was irrelevant because your response chose not to discuss my observations, but rather, went on a bender against some bizarre perception you have about me.

If anyone is reading anything into God’s Word is you die heart traditionalist who are just like the Jews in Jesus day

. So much that is taught in religion today is from tradition and not revelation as you tried to point out but were so off the mark; there is a pattern in the Bible when it comes to the word tradition; it is not spoken of in a positive light.

What is revelation to you; something you pick out of the air? Revelation to me is God revealing a truth by His Word and spirit; those little hidden morsels right in front of your nose and you never saw it; until someone revealed it to you and for the first time it became real. Revelation is not a long dead doctrine of religion that men cannot explain by God's Word. The Bible is so full of these little mysteries. The problem is when men follow tradition they are just like the Jews; that is all they see the old wine, yesterday manna and reject revelation.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Completely irrelevant- again. We won't mention that the scriptures also teach that we hold on to traditions- but you knew that already, right? But why go there: we prove the Trinity without tradition at all.

The point is this: and I re-iterate although you may struggle with this your whole life for all I care: Trinitarians do not need tradition to determine our doctrine on this matter. We accept the Bible without casting our interpretations or traditions on it. Non-Trins (you) must re-interpret scriptures to make their doctrines fly. This is simple, this has nothing to do with tradition, and your rant against "tradition" is really completely, utterly irrelevant. We say this and this alone: God is one. The Bible teaches without traditional input that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God. These points are not born out of tradition, but out of an honest and literal acceptance of the plain, ordinary and religable words of scripture.

 

[Ichabod 2]

Wow...really? I had no idea...quick...give me your church's telephone number so I can ring your pastor and finally discover "the truth" about my tradition and how it's blinded me...then I can join you in the fight against 20 centuries of Christianity....

OK?

Your response was irrelevant because your response chose not to discuss my observations, but rather, went on a bender against some bizarre perception you have about me.

Completely irrelevant- again. We won't mention that the scriptures also teach that we hold on to traditions- but you knew that already, right? But why go there: we prove the Trinity without tradition at all.

The point is this: and I re-iterate although you may struggle with this your whole life for all I care: Trinitarians do not need tradition to determine our doctrine on this matter. We accept the Bible without casting our interpretations or traditions on it. Non-Trins (you) must re-interpret scriptures to make their doctrines fly. This is simple, this has nothing to do with tradition, and your rant against "tradition" is really completely, utterly irrelevant. We say this and this alone: God is one. The Bible teaches without traditional input that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God. These points are not born out of tradition, but out of an honest and literal acceptance of the plain, ordinary and religable words of scripture.

Opinion based on your logic and not God's Word. You are the one who is utterly irrelevant. If you cannot base your belief on God's Word is is irrelevant.

Show me where God is made up of three persons in God's Word not your bias.

 

[ContraMundum]

Opinion based on your logic and not God's Word. You are the one who is utterly irrelevant. If you cannot base your belief on God's Word is is irrelevant.

You STILL don't get it- we reject man's darkened reason and just accept what the Bible says- in the plain, literal sense. You do not. If the conclusion we come to based on the clear passages of scripture doesn't make sense- it's obviously not meant to! We don't re-interpret it until it makes sense with our darkened human reason, we just accept it and that's all. Trinitarians believe in the literal word, you do not.

Show me where God is made up of three persons in God's Word not your bias.

You've BEEN shown already. You just don't accept it because it doesn't make sense to you- based on your logic. We say "The Name (written in the singular in the Greek) of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit". We read elsewhere that the Son is God, and that the Spirit is God. But, because there is one God and yet we have in scripture three persons with divine qualities.....we just accept that it doesn't make complete sense and take it like a man. God has spoken. The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there is One God. Here endeth the lesson for Trinitarians.

But for you guys.....you are the ones using logic, reason and tradition. You can't accept that God could possibly be a mystery to fallen humanity, so you have to re-interpret the scriptures. Suddenly, in your schools of thought, Jesus is not the "Alpha and the Omega" as He says, but you have to change the text to mean something else (for example, this is what the JWs do by adding an imaginary comma).

So, how about keeping silent on the "your traditions" nonsense and just stick to the arguments presented to you already. Stop changing the subject to how stupid you think Christians are and stick to the text, ok kimosabe?

 

[Der Alte]

Amen, Jesus is God not the second person of the trinty.

On your second point it still does not prove your point the God is three persons

Once again you have NOT read my post, you are just posting your quite evidently precanned arguments. Here is the final sentence of my post above which you did not read.

There is one God! The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, all three are called/ referred to as God, in scripture, but each has a distinct mind, will, and self; John 16:13, 1 Cor 12:11, Philippians 2:5, John 5:26, Rom 8:27, Matthew 26:39​

.

 

[2ducklow]

You STILL don't get it- we reject man's darkened reason and just accept what the Bible says- in the plain, literal sense. You do not. If the conclusion we come to based on the clear passages of scripture doesn't make sense- it's obviously not meant to! We don't re-interpret it until it makes sense with our darkened human reason, we just accept it and that's all. Trinitarians believe in the literal word, you do not.

You mean everything in the b ible is to be taken literally? like,

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

or

Revelation 21:23 And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb.ASV

Sooo Jesus is literally a lamb and a lamp?

or

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Soo, the word of god is literally sharper than a sword?

or

etc. etc. etc. etc. you know like eat my flesh and drink the blood of Jesus , all literal right?

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

You've BEEN shown already. You just don't accept it because it doesn't make sense to you- based on your logic. We say "The Name (written in the singular in the Greek) of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit". We read elsewhere that the Son is God, and that the Spirit is God. But, because there is one God and yet we have in scripture three persons with divine qualities.....we just accept that it doesn't make complete sense and take it like a man. God has spoken. The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there is One God. Here endeth the lesson for Trinitarians.

But for you guys.....you are the ones using logic, reason and tradition. You can't accept that God could possibly be a mystery to fallen humanity, so you have to re-interpret the scriptures. Suddenly, in your schools of thought, Jesus is not the "Alpha and the Omega" as He says, but you have to change the text to mean something else (for example, this is what the JWs do by adding an imaginary comma).

So, how about keeping silent on the "your traditions" nonsense and just stick to the arguments presented to you already. Stop changing the subject to how stupid you think Christians are and stick to the text, ok kimosabe?

 

[Ichabod 2]

You STILL don't get it- we reject man's darkened reason and just accept what the Bible says- in the plain, literal sense. You do not. If the conclusion we come to based on the clear passages of scripture doesn't make sense- it's obviously not meant to! We don't re-interpret it until it makes sense with our darkened human reason, we just accept it and that's all. Trinitarians believe in the literal word, you do not.

You've BEEN shown already. You just don't accept it because it doesn't make sense to you- based on your logic. We say "The Name (written in the singular in the Greek) of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit". We read elsewhere that the Son is God, and that the Spirit is God. But, because there is one God and yet we have in scripture three persons with divine qualities.....we just accept that it doesn't make complete sense and take it like a man. God has spoken. The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there is One God. Here endeth the lesson for Trinitarians.

But for you guys.....you are the ones using logic, reason and tradition. You can't accept that God could possibly be a mystery to fallen humanity, so you have to re-interpret the scriptures. Suddenly, in your schools of thought, Jesus is not the "Alpha and the Omega" as He says, but you have to change the text to mean something else (for example, this is what the JWs do by adding an imaginary comma).

So, how about keeping silent on the "your traditions" nonsense and just stick to the arguments presented to you already. Stop changing the subject to how stupid you think Christians are and stick to the text, ok kimosabe?

You have shown me NOTHING...... Yes I believe in God’s Word; no I do not believe in the literal word of God (the letter Killeth). But no matter how you want to approach God’s Word there is no such thing in the literal Word that says God is made up of three person (that you refuse to address because it does not fit in your broken wine skin). I have been asking you for a clear passage of scripture that declares God is three persons and it is not there. Without three persons you have no trinity. Why would I accept something that is not there; if God wants us to believe something he puts it in His Word. If man wants you believe something He creates a false doctrine. If you cannot back it with God’s Word it is not truth, just man’s traditions.

Show me where the it is written in scripture “three persons with divine qualities”; more hogwash. You keep quoting non-biblical phases in defense of your false doctrine.

You cannot prove your false doctrine with your logic; to any open minded, unbiased, logical thinker bases fact on substance; the trinity is a doctrine of Rome and not found in the Bible. You have given me nothing but your bias religious logic, based on religion. If God is made up of three persons show me in chapter and verse; if not you have no trinity. God is one; not three persons.

Mystery: There are many mysteries in the Bible; but they are based on God’s Word not the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The word mystery was written 27 times in the NT and means sacred secret; no where is anything written that God is three persons, no where do you find “God the Father, god the Son an God the Holy Spirit” (three gods). No where is there any reference to God the first person of the trinity, Jesus the second person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity. These are words of men and not words from the Bible.

Name of God

It has been said there are over two hundred different names for God; no where is God called three person’s of the trinity.

The name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has nothing to do with God being three persons; a name speaks of God’s nature, his character and His authority. A name is more than a moniker, more than a simple badge or means of identification, something by which we address people specifically and individually. In biblical usage there is much in a name! True, the names we give our children in this modern day usually have little or no significance. It has become the custom to give foolish names which do not mean anything, except a jingle of sounds. We often name our children after some favorite aunt, uncle, or grandparent, or choose a name because we like its sound or association. But in Bible times names were chosen with great care and were frequently given by prophetic utterance or under divine inspiration so that the names actually revealed the nature, character, attributes, and destiny of the person, and thus carried a message to all who spoke or used that name.

In a very real sense the "name" of a being is regarded as being a real part of the person. In a certain sense there can be no separation whatsoever between a man’s name and what he is as a person. In the scriptures the innermost being of a man is expressed in his name. That is why Esau declares of his conniving brother, "Is he not rightly named Jacob (supplanter)? For he has supplanted me these two times" (Gen. 27:36). After wresting with the angel of the Lord, however, Jacob underwent a change of attitude and alteration of character which was accompanied by a change of name. Having seen the "face" or presence of God he was no longer the same man that he had been before his encounter with the Lord. Since name and character are absolutely identified there had to be a change in Jacob’s appellation! The angel of the Lord, therefore, said, "Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel (Prince): for as a prince thou hast power with God and with men, and hast prevailed" (Gen. 32:28).

"I will set him on high because he has known my name" (Ps. 91:14). To know His name is to become, in union with Him, the name-nature of God in every hour and in every way. To know His name is to enter in to the pure inner life of God, and exude His nature, His life, His character and all else that He is. To know means more than mere intellectual understanding or carnal knowledge. It means "intimate union" as when "Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain" (Gen. 4:1). Some people think because they use or pronounce the names Yahweh, El Elyon, Yahshua, and all the other Hebrew names they have dug out of the concordance, that this truly honors the Lord, makes the use of these names magical, procures favor with God, or is a mark of spirituality. People without a revelation from the Lord, or participation in His life, are disposed to go back and use the "letter" of that given to past generations of men of God. Some even become so radical that they re-write the Bible, inserting the Hebrew names in the New Testament text, although they do not appear in the ancient manuscripts!

The Psalmist says, "And they that know Thy name shall put their trust in Thee" (Ps. 9:10). The message is clear: "They that have experienced the inworking, the development and formation of Thy nature will confidently trust in Thee." If this has not been your experience yet — that is, the inworking and formation of His nature within — then you do not yet know the name of the Lord though you may be zealous to consistently use the Hebrew words Yahweh, Yahshua, and all the other name forms in the Old Testament.


Point being the name of the Father, Son and HS have nothing to do with God being three persons.

 

[Ichabod 2]

Once again you have NOT read my post, you are just posting your quite evidently precanned arguments. Here is the final sentence of my post above which you did not read.

There is one God! The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, all three are called/ referred to as God, in scripture, but each has a distinct mind, will, and self; John 16:13, 1 Cor 12:11, Philippians 2:5, John 5:26, Rom 8:27, Matthew 26:39
​

.

but each has a distinct mind, will, and self;

HOGWASH.... Prove it


Chapter and verse please; don't quote the verse, post the content and show me in content.

 

[k2svpete]

A little piece of information for the trinitarians daring to actually have a discussion about this (kudos to you for that). The idea of a trinity did not come about until the Council of Nicea. That's some time after Christ and when you've got such a stand-up guy like Constantine heading it up it isn't worth the paper it was written on.

The constant theme throughout the bible is that 'The LORD God is one God, besides Him there are no others.' This goes right through the OT and the NT. Jesus reaffirms the Shema (this statement which is the fundamental statement of the Jews).

No where in scripture is Jesus called 'God the Son'. Many times he is referred to as 'The son of God.' A significant difference.

Are you also aware that prominent men of history who were also ardent bible scholars such as Sir Isaac Newton, and Thomas Jefferson were not trinitarians. Add them to the many thousands of people who stood up against this pagan ideal that was thrust into Christianity at the Council of Nicea by a Pagan Roman Emperor who knew that he had to meld the pagan and Christian beliefs together to prevent the rendering of the empire.

Der Alter, you mentioned on a previous page that you had heard many times but never saw where the Catholic Church was related to paganism. Here are a few tid bits - Pontificus Maximus (the title of the pope and also the same title given to the pagan high priest in Rome), the cardinals (the same structure of pagan priests that served pontificus maximus. They still wear the same robes as the pagans.) The mitre that priests wear, this is the same headpiece worn by some pagan priests that is meant to resemble a fish head.

There is so much more before we even get into the doctrines.

 

[ContraMundum]

You mean everything in the b ible is to be taken literally?

No one is saying that. Please don't generalise like this is the first time I've heard of the Bible. The rest of your post was unecessary as it addresses something I've not posited.

 

[ContraMundum]

You have shown me NOTHING...... Yes I believe in God’s Word; no I do not believe in the literal word of God (the letter Killeth). But no matter how you want to approach God’s Word there is no such thing in the literal Word that says God is made up of three person (that you refuse to address because it does not fit in your broken wine skin).

I don't think you've thought this through, because you're still talking past us and being really, really argumentative. Please understand that it is very difficult for me to take someone seriously who calls himself "Ichabod" in the first place- I find it difficult to invest time in someone who a) doesn't appear to really want to talk and b) has no intention of really listening. I am a very busy man and I'll give time to serious enquirers, but not ex-Christians who really just want to validate their decision to leave Christianity for something else.

Explain yourself as to what a) you think we mean by "person" and b) what or who "God" is and then maybe we'll have a place to start. So far, I find your entire approach to the Bible very strange and convoluted, so perhaps a fresh start is needed- unless you are an ex-Christian in which case I won't invest time in this. I don't really think that is a good investment for either of us in that case, unless you are interested in becoming a Christian or genuinely here to learn what we believe.

 

[ContraMundum]

A little piece of information for the trinitarians daring to actually have a discussion about this (kudos to you for that). The idea of a trinity did not come about until the Council of Nicea. That's some time after Christ and when you've got such a stand-up guy like Constantine heading it up it isn't worth the paper it was written on.

That's not actually true, k2. It's an urban myth that gets a lot of mileage in the anti-Christian and anti-Church conspiracy groups, but it's simply not true.

a) The word "Trinity" first appears about 170AD in the works of Theophilos of Antioch- over a century before Nicea.

b) The word Trinity merely describes the faith of the church- it was not a term coined as a "new" doctrine, but was a term accepted by the church as describing what she already believed. Any reading of the early Christian writers shows that novelties introduced always caused uproar. There was no uproar over using the term Trinity to describe God, rather, it immediately gained acceptance as being the faith recieved by the church from Christ and His Apostles. It was not a new doctrine, but a term to describe the original doctrine.

c) Constantine had no ecclesiastical authority, and merely convened the Council as he guaranteed, as a secular ruler, safe travel etc for the bishops that attended. Therefore, as such, he could not define any doctrine, but merely chaired a meeting in which almost universal support for the Deity of Christ was declared as the faith delivered to the Church by Christ. It was the bishops, as custodians of the faith passed down to them, to declare the faith given them.

d) All of this happened before the final canon of the Bible was decided. In other words, those who canonised the books of the Bible and declared that those books were inspired and true were Trinitarians. The church decided which books would comprise your Bible, which by faith you accept tha tthe Church was correct and guided by God. Yet, this same church had already declared itself to be Trinitarian.

The constant theme throughout the bible is that 'The LORD God is one God, besides Him there are no others.' This goes right through the OT and the NT. Jesus reaffirms the Shema (this statement which is the fundamental statement of the Jews).

I was raised in the Jewish religion. The Shema declares that Adonai is "echad" (one in unity), not "yachid" (one in number).

Are you also aware that prominent men of history who were also ardent bible scholars such as Sir Isaac Newton, and Thomas Jefferson were not trinitarians.

Neither Issac Newton or Jefferson the slave owner were actually trained theologians who held any office in the church. I don't think they were very good scholars of the Bible, despite their achievements int he fields they were called to. The Bible tells us that some are called to be teachers in the church, and neither of these two claimed that title for themselves or were given it by the church. Let's stick to Newton for science and Jefferson for politics and leave theology to the theologians, eh?

Add them to the many thousands of people who stood up against this pagan ideal that was thrust into Christianity at the Council of Nicea by a Pagan Roman Emperor who knew that he had to meld the pagan and Christian beliefs together to prevent the rendering of the empire.

Myth. Refuted above.

Der Alter, you mentioned on a previous page that you had heard many times but never saw where the Catholic Church was related to paganism. Here are a few tid bits - Pontificus Maximus (the title of the pope and also the same title given to the pagan high priest in Rome), the cardinals (the same structure of pagan priests that served pontificus maximus. They still wear the same robes as the pagans.) The mitre that priests wear, this is the same headpiece worn by some pagan priests that is meant to resemble a fish head.

There is so much more before we even get into the doctrines.

Here's some tidbits for you- let's apply your analogy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after which, by hence which) to the Bible as a whole, not just the church.

If you think that because some elements of paganism had similarities to Christianity according to archeology, therefore Christianity must be a copy-cat religion, then you are in trouble, because the OT is loaded with paganism that pre-dates the scriptures and the religion of Judaism according to archeology. For example, the Code of Hammurabi was written a long time before the Torah, and it looks a lot like it. Therefore, according to post hoc, ergo propter hoc, the Torah must be of pagan origin. Likewise, regarding the Torah, as the Jews had just left a nation (Egypt) which had an established priesthood and an established sacrificial system, a king, a place of sacrifice, altars, incense, Temples, etc, then the Jews must have brought that out of Egypt with them and written a religious system that copied the one of their former captors. This would obviously have been done to make conversion easy....or so the story would go if we used your paradigm. This is not even mentioning that the visions of God in the OT look a lot like the same visions of their pagan neighbours. In other words, if earlier pagan symbolism condemns the ancient faith of the church, then by the same rules it condemns the OT too. You're left with nothing.

Perhaps you might re-think God's role in using symbols people understand to teach His truth to them- like He did with the Jewish peoplein the OT.

 

[Ichabod 2]

I don't think you've thought this through, because you're still talking past us and being really, really argumentative. Please understand that it is very difficult for me to take someone seriously who calls himself "Ichabod" in the first place- I find it difficult to invest time in someone who a) doesn't appear to really want to talk and b) has no intention of really listening. I am a very busy man and I'll give time to serious enquirers, but not ex-Christians who really just want to validate their decision to leave Christianity for something else.

Explain yourself as to what a) you think we mean by "person" and b) what or who "God" is and then maybe we'll have a place to start. So far, I find your entire approach to the Bible very strange and convoluted, so perhaps a fresh start is needed- unless you are an ex-Christian in which case I won't invest time in this. I don't really think that is a good investment for either of us in that case, unless you are interested in becoming a Christian or genuinely here to learn what we believe.

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

Yes my approach to God’s Word is strange to religious thinking men. If anyone has not thought this; it is you. Unless you can give me chapter and verse that proves God is three persons?

You speak of me speaking past you; why because I give you scriptural patterns and example and not my opinion to validate my point; at least I am using God’s Word for validation not the Catholic Church. You are just as argumentative as I; this is a debate. I am a busy person also and my time is precious but the real issue here is your doctrine is sinking sand and is your god; and you cannot see past it.

I have heard what you said, and address just about everything you have presented me; you just do not like my reply. If I have missed something please address it again and I will respond.

What are you talking about; “but not ex-Christians who really just want to validate their decision to leave Christianity for something else”. Who are you to judge I am a Christian? I am the one pointing out to you who believes in the traditions of religion and rejects God’s Word. By the way I am a Christian Universalist also.


God is many things and it would take many pages to answer this simple question; but one thing God is not is a carnal, earthy human person. Yes Jesus was human; but never carnal in the sense of the flesh; but even that was ordained before man’s fall. You see God is a spirit, never in scripture was God identified as a person/persons. God is divine not a man. A person is a human being. Now Jesus was a person for 33 ½ years; but he was God manifested in the flesh. God is one; this is declared from Genesis to Revelation. Not until the Catholic Church came along did the number of gods increase to three gods or three persons in the God head. God the Father, God the Son God the Holy Spirit. I know and declare by God’s Word that God is one.


Ichabod was purposely chosen for me; it an awesome example of the glory departing God’s people and that is what has happens today in the religious realm. Men of God follow their traditions and choose their anointed and not the Christ with in them. The ark (glory of God) did depart under Saul, who anointing was chosen by men; but it did return to David who was anointed as a Child by God. Today men choose their anointed instead of wait for God to call and choose who He has anointed.

But God is going to again setup the Tabernacle of David for the remainder of mankind in the ages to come (Acts 15:15-18).

 

[ContraMundum]

Yes my approach to God’s Word is strange to religious thinking men.

You're VERY religious, if you ask me. Just not my religion- perhaps your own?

If anyone has not thought this; it is you. Unless you can give me chapter and verse that proves God is three persons?

A person by our definition is someone you can have a relationship with. Someone who loves, and who can be loved, for example.

Now, the scriptures teach that you can have a relationship with God the Father, as this is re-iterated over and over again in the OT.

Likewise, you can have the same with Jesus Christ. Likewise the Holy Spirit.....

2Co 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

This text, exegeted and not interpreted, states: a) Jesus is Lord (κύριο&#962 and He gives grace (an act only God can perform) b) God gives love and c) the Holy Spirit gives fellowship. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, He cannot give fellowship. If Jesus is not a person, then He cannot give grace, and if God is not a person He cannot love. But because they can give grace, fellowship and love they are persons. Three persons, yet the scriptures declare that there is only One God.

There you have it. Simple. I'm sure your theology will complicate this very simple, very accessible thought, but no Christian theology has ever, ever claimed that a "person" can only be a human being. You are mis-understanding Christian theology, and that's a shame because I can pull out any one of several Christian theological tomes across the denominations that clearly state and agree upon what personhood means in relation to God and man. You're mistaken about us and our beliefs.

Also, you ask for a text that says "God is three persons"- and we can show that this text above has no other meaning when read plainly for all to see.

However, I hope you're not just playing semantic games with me, as all I have to do is say that "show me in the Bible where it says there can be a such thing as a Christian Universalist", and of course the answer is "no text says exactly that", yet I know that you came to that belief because you took many texts together. This is your practice, and you must allow it to your fellow posters. Our theology is a result of centuries of prayer and reading. We can prove it's very ancient roots, even pre-dating the canon of scripture. You might want to be a little more respectful of our heritage and even the intelligence of those who came before both of us. You don't have to agree, but at least see that it's not just some bizzare tradition invented by some person know one can name or put a date to (which would be a conspiracy theory).

God is many things and it would take many pages to answer this simple question; but one thing God is not is a carnal, earthy human person. Yes Jesus was human; but never carnal in the sense of the flesh; but even that was ordained before man’s fall. You see God is a spirit, never in scripture was God identified as a person/persons. God is divine not a man. A person is a human being. Now Jesus was a person for 33 ½ years; but he was God manifested in the flesh. God is one; this is declared from Genesis to Revelation. Not until the Catholic Church came along did the number of gods increase to three gods or three persons in the God head. God the Father, God the Son God the Holy Spirit. I know and declare by God’s Word that God is one.

As I mentioned above, the church does not teach that a person is a always only a human being. This is why you misunderstand the Trinity from the start, it appears. You're arguing that we teach that the Trinity is three human beings, when it is blatantly obvious that this is not true.

Secondly, when exactly did the "Catholic Church" "come along" and who started it? What was his name, what day was it and let's see the foundational documents, first meeting, and all that. Even the church historians haven't been able to produce that documentation. Furthermore,why was there no outcry if new teachings were introduced into the church? We all know that the early Christians were terribly intolerant of new teachings. We know that they were outraged when Arius taught against the Divinity of Christ, and investigations show that he was bringing the new doctrine, not the Nicean Fathers. The fact is- the church is the church is the church. According to the scriptures. Founded by Christ, given to the Apostles, who passed its care to other overseers in an unbroken line of teachers and teaching. It's never ended, it's never going to. It exists.

Ichabod was purposely chosen for me; it an awesome example of the glory departing God’s people and that is what has happens today in the religious realm.

Well, pardon my reflecting back at you but if I was as judgmental as that I could say "perhaps it's departed you". I know God's glory is amongst us- I've seen it first hand- even despite our sins. I can't imagine why anyone would pick a moniker for such hostile reasons, not to mention it really conjures up a image that perhaps isn't really what you're about? I certainly took it to represent a person who left the church to start his own religion or something.

 

[Ichabod 2]

You're VERY religious, if you ask me. Just not my religion- perhaps your own?

A person by our definition is someone you can have a relationship with. Someone who loves, and who can be loved, for example.

Now, the scriptures teach that you can have a relationship with God the Father, as this is re-iterated over and over again in the OT.

Likewise, you can have the same with Jesus Christ. Likewise the Holy Spirit.....

2Co 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

This text, exegeted and not interpreted, states: a) Jesus is Lord (κύριο&#962 and He gives grace (an act only God can perform) b) God gives love and c) the Holy Spirit gives fellowship. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, He cannot give fellowship. If Jesus is not a person, then He cannot give grace, and if God is not a person He cannot love. But because they can give grace, fellowship and love they are persons. Three persons, yet the scriptures declare that there is only One God.

There you have it. Simple. I'm sure your theology will complicate this very simple, very accessible thought, but no Christian theology has ever, ever claimed that a "person" can only be a human being. You are mis-understanding Christian theology, and that's a shame because I can pull out any one of several Christian theological tomes across the denominations that clearly state and agree upon what personhood means in relation to God and man. You're mistaken about us and our beliefs.

Also, you ask for a text that says "God is three persons"- and we can show that this text above has no other meaning when read plainly for all to see.

However, I hope you're not just playing semantic games with me, as all I have to do is say that "show me in the Bible where it says there can be a such thing as a Christian Universalist", and of course the answer is "no text says exactly that", yet I know that you came to that belief because you took many texts together. This is your practice, and you must allow it to your fellow posters. Our theology is a result of centuries of prayer and reading. We can prove it's very ancient roots, even pre-dating the canon of scripture. You might want to be a little more respectful of our heritage and even the intelligence of those who came before both of us. You don't have to agree, but at least see that it's not just some bizzare tradition invented by some person know one can name or put a date to (which would be a conspiracy theory).

As I mentioned above, the church does not teach that a person is a always only a human being. This is why you misunderstand the Trinity from the start, it appears. You're arguing that we teach that the Trinity is three human beings, when it is blatantly obvious that this is not true.

Secondly, when exactly did the "Catholic Church" "come along" and who started it? What was his name, what day was it and let's see the foundational documents, first meeting, and all that. Even the church historians haven't been able to produce that documentation. Furthermore,why was there no outcry if new teachings were introduced into the church? We all know that the early Christians were terribly intolerant of new teachings. We know that they were outraged when Arius taught against the Divinity of Christ, and investigations show that he was bringing the new doctrine, not the Nicean Fathers. The fact is- the church is the church is the church. According to the scriptures. Founded by Christ, given to the Apostles, who passed its care to other overseers in an unbroken line of teachers and teaching. It's never ended, it's never going to. It exists.

Well, pardon my reflecting back at you but if I was as judgmental as that I could say "perhaps it's departed you". I know God's glory is amongst us- I've seen it first hand- even despite our sins. I can't imagine why anyone would pick a moniker for such hostile reasons, not to mention it really conjures up a image that perhaps isn't really what you're about? I certainly took it to represent a person who left the church to start his own religion or something.

What a bunch of opinion and human reason; if there is three persons of the trinity than show me and stop trying to defend your false traditions with nonsense and religious bias. Can you not simply defend your beliefs with God Word instead of all this human reasoning????

The Holy Spirit is God; God with in you, God with in all of us; that part of God with in us that in fact He is that divine part of God with in each one of us capable of speaking, loving, reproving, teaching, convicting and transforming and the only one that will lead and guide us into all truth. When was the last time the Holy Spirit revealed anything new to you; and no where is He addressed as the third person of the trinity.

I have no theology; because I am anti-religious if this was so simple where is your chapter and verse that proves your false claim that God is three persons???? You are right about ” no Christian theology has ever, ever claimed that a "person" can only be a human being” because like you they blindly follow there religion ‘s and ignore what God Word declares. If I was misunderstanding Christian theology I would not be here expressing to you that none of your so called Christian theologians can show me God is made up of three persons in scripture.

I would be glad to debate Christian Universalism with you and using God’s Word not my opinion to prove you are 100% wrong.

You again place your faith in religion and not the Christ with in you; the Jews could claim the same as your quote for they too had” for centuries of prayer and reading” and they missed the very Christ that were waiting for.

I got to run I will address more in a few hours.

 

[2ducklow]

No one is saying that. Please don't generalise like this is the first time I've heard of the Bible. The rest of your post was unecessary as it addresses something I've not posited.

then what did you mean when you said trinitarians believe in the literal word of god ?

Trinitarians believe in the literal word, you do not.

How is it we don't believe the literal word, and if we don't believe the literal word what kind of word do we believe? I beleive every word in the bible is the word of God, so how is it i don't believe the literal word, if you didn't mean that every thing should be taken literally?

 

[2ducklow]

This text, exegeted and not interpreted, states: a) Jesus is Lord (κύριο&#962 and He gives grace (an act only God can perform) b) God gives love and c) the Holy Spirit gives fellowship. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, He cannot give fellowship. If Jesus is not a person, then He cannot give grace, and if God is not a person He cannot love. But because they can give grace, fellowship and love they are persons. Three persons, yet the scriptures declare that there is only One God.



Also, you ask for a text that says "God is three persons"- and we can show that this text above has no other meaning when read plainly for all to see.

If some scripture said Jesus is God, God the Father is God, and the holy spirit is god, yet there is only one god, then i would agree with you. but no scripture says Jesus is God. According to what scripture says, and not your interpretations of it, God the father is the only true god, and god is holy and god is spirit, and therefore god the father is holy spirit, and since there is only one holy spirit, god the father is the holy spirit. there aren't 2 holy spirits just one, and it is the one and only true god.

You have no scripture saying Jesus is god, just scriptures you interpret that way , and most of the ones you interpret to mean that Jesus is god are spurious, like 1 john 5.7, and many many more. you name a scripture in defence of your doctrine that Jesus is god, and 99 percent of the time it is the spurious version of that scripture. So you interpret scripture to mean that Jesus is God, you interpret scripture to mean that the holy spirit is not god the father, and say no other conclusion can come from these so called facts but that god is a trinity. I would have to agree with you, if your interpretation that JEsus is god, and the holy spirit is not god the fahter. But your interpretation is not correct. name a scripture in support of your doctrine,and I'll probably be able to show how it is a forgery. I won't be able to show you just like i was unable to show you how your quote of col. 3.16 is an interpolation of scripture, but i did give proof that at least one word in it is spurious. you just stated you couldn't understand the quote from Bruce Metzger. called it latin catholic mumbo jumbo, which it wasn't. but it was a good cop out on your part.

 

[Der Alte]

but each has a distinct mind, will, and self;

HOGWASH.... Prove it

Chapter and verse please; don't quote the verse, post the content and show me in content.

You don't have a Bible? What do you mean "in content?"

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.​

By whose authority does the Holy Spirit speak? Who does the H.S. hear from? Who tells the H.S. of things to come?

1 Co 12:11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.​

The H.S. has a will, distinct from Jesus.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:​

Jesus had a mind.

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;​

Jesus has a "self" distinct from the Father.

Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.​

The Spirit has a "mind," and a "will" distinct from God.

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.​

Jesus has a "will" distinct from the Father.

 

[Ichabod 2]

You don't have a Bible? What do you mean "in content?"

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
​

By whose authority does the Holy Spirit speak? Who does the H.S. hear from? Who tells the H.S. of things to come?

1 Co 12:11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
​

The H.S. has a will, distinct from Jesus.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
​

Jesus had a mind.

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
​

Jesus has a "self" distinct from the Father.

Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
​

The Spirit has a "mind," and a "will" distinct from God.

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
​

Jesus has a "will" distinct from the Father.

Now you explain to me how this makes Jesus the second person of the trinity; and or the Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity? Please use chapter and verse.

If you cannot show me that God is made up of three persons then it is a false belief.

God is one not three persons.

 

[Der Alte]

Now you explain to me how this makes Jesus the second person of the trinity; and or the Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity? Please use chapter and verse.

If you cannot show me that God is made up of three persons then it is a false belief.

God is one not three persons.

I just did in two posts which you have not addressed in any meaningful way. There is one God. The Father is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God, but he is not the Father or the Son. There is one God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, have distinct selves, minds, and wills.