Trinity is wrong.

[gort]

First of all, sorry for the lateness. Been on the couch with the flu and 2 bottles of Nyquil since Saturday

First of all, trinitarians say that you have to BELIEVE trinity to be saved, not comprehend it. Most trinitarians know you cannot understand how 3 is one, though some will claim they do.

Start a thread and prove it. Never heard it before. Such a belief impinges Grace.

it appeared to me that you were saying that to truely believe that Jesus is lord and savior one has to believe in the trinity, and that you eventually found your way there.

nope

I do not believe one is a christian unless he makes Jesus his lord and savior, therefore it appears to me that you contradicted yourself by saying on the one hand trinity isn't necessary for salvation but one eventually has to get there to truely be saved.

As to the part in bold, I agree.

Can you name one church service that is alive in the spirit?

Mine and several churches of several co-workers

Name one on TV so I can see it. I've never seen one.

What do they have to do to meet your expectations?

oh it's true God is moving in every chruch service, but not to the extent that God wants. To me they all look like watered down versions of what God wants.

HOw do you know? Are you using what your church does as the example to judge all other churches? Be careful, if you are.

oh brother, splitting hairs . Do you have any point to this philospher stuff or am I to assume it is just some exercise of yours in futility.?

Not even going to bother checking it out, are you...

Uh no, you see here is where we fundamentally differ, I make sense out of scripture you don't. 3 is one and 2 is one is nonsesne not sense.

Now you're talking just like Stranger.

The word (of god) became flesh (Jesus).
The word (of Ralph, who says to a woman :"will you marry me:") became flesh (with the birth of thier first born)

Both sentences should be intepreted the same way. the words of Ralph ultimately culminated in the birth of a son, the words of God ultimately culminated in the birth of his son. same thing.

So is this your final explanation of how everthing that God had to say became flesh?

ONce again you imploy your reasoning that there is only one possible interpretation of certain scriptures you use for trinity. There are nonsense interpretations (yours) and there are interpetations that make sense (mine.) I don't make nonssense interpretations like 3 is one or 2 is one or what god said morphed into felsh. you make those kinds of illogical nonsenseical interpretaions of scripture, not me.

And you don't implore your reasoning that there is only one possible interpretation of certain scriptures that discount trinity? One of us could be in error, blinded or consumed.

I explained how I believe Jesus reveals himself to us, call it what you want.
i determine that something is not literal if it makes no sense when taken literally. you determine that something is literal if it supports trinity, whether it makes any logical sense is irrelevant to you.

Logical sense is constrained to your reasoning and subjective understanding. This was explicitly shown when I asked you about Jesus revealing Himself; whether it be literal or figurative. Experimentally, for me, it is both.

If one can't understand it then how can you say it is true? God didn't say trinity, you do. So I'm suppose to accept trinity which can't be understood cause you say it's true. No way Jose/.

Again, your subjective experiences are in the way. Your criteria to meet is, God did'nt say trinity. But, GOd did say, The Logos was God. ANd, The Logos became flesh...

Not knowing you my assumption would be that it is highly improbable but not impossible, If I knew you better , then I might have a more possitive opinon one way or the other.

Maybe you're a doubting THomas?

No I think you most probably are born again christian and therefore are a christian. Trinity has nothing to do with whetheryou are saved or not the way I see it.

To my understanding today, I agree with you. I'm not willing to impinge works against Grace by any means.

So is yours, you jsut ignore your experiences. you ignore your expereines that tell you 3 is not one, and 2 is not one. I don't.

I beg to differ somewhat. The scriptures point out that the Logos was GOd. So far, that makes 2 Gods, but we also know that there is only numerically one God. However, trinity is more than a numbers game. Far more.

you accept your experiences with fellow trinitarians who tell you 3 is one makes sense, I reject my experiences with trintiarains who say 3 is one makes sense because it plainly and clearly is not.

You're in error. I don't take understanding from fellow trinitarians. Never have.

Can I be blunt on this point? Not trying to offend you but to me saying 3 is one is just plain goofy. Nonsense is not a strong enough word to describe correctly the idea of 3 being one, it comes short where as goofy hits the nail on the head,.

Really don't mind at all. I once never had a grasp on it either so I understand your position. It may be goofy to you, but again, this is your subjective reasoning at work, not mine.

If someone came up to you on the street and asked you how many blocks it is to such and such street, and you say 10 blocks then turn right for 2 blocks. and they guy says :"ok yea 10 is 13 so I go 13 blocks and turn left cause right is left, and go another 5 blocks cause 2 is 5, gottcha." you'd probably think "what a dufus this guy is.": That's how 3 is one appears to me. I'm not calling you a dufus or saying you are goofy. you just don't realize that 3 is one is in the same category or you would reject it if you did.

You really can't take the topic of who God is and translate it into counting blocks. God is much bigger than that. And neither can I take an egg, divide it into shell, yoke and egg white and try to explain trinity to you. It does'nt work, it falls way short of the goalpost.

What God says requires no proof for me as to whether it is true or not. Anyone's doctrine, such as trinity, must be proven to me and must make sense. Trinity fails both tests. I will not accept, nor should I accept, any doctrine on faith. And I don't.

Are you sure of that? The doctrine of salvation is one of faith. Perhaps you are opened to your error? Or, do you have proof of God that you can prove to me?

See that's your interrpretation, not what scripture says. and your interpretation makes no sense. you justify it by claiming that your interpretation is the only possible meaning, But it isn't. there are interpretations, such as mine, that make sense. If you or anyone says something that makes no sense, like Jesus existed before he existed as some fella whose name is word and word changed into a fetus in marys womb and you call that begatting and conceiving., then I ain't gonna believe it cause it is not only nonsencial but is also oh well nevermind.

Non sensical to you, but makes perfect sense to me. Jesus existed before He existed as a man on earth. Had to have, as John called HIm the Logos who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.

ANd, the Logos became flesh...

 

[k2svpete]

Glad you're feeling better.

So God's word never existed with him except as a spiritual son, from the beginning. Hmm.

What happened to all that knew from the beginning when he was begotten as a man then?

 

[stranger]

It is the way proposed by every church. They don't live fully up to the high goals set for us by God, but neither do you or I or anyone. Of course we all know you think you alone do.

I have no idea why you think everyone else here thinks the same as you, nor why you should think that I think I am a saint, nor why you imagine that the saints are not saints ... better perhaps to stop guesssing and judging , read the scripture written by saints and Jesus and prphets of God , and stop trying to make it a personal contest to pretend the saints don't exist because they have a better [sooner] resurrection than sinners ... the few saints of this earth have a role in becoming the priests and kings of the kingdom, the sinners have a role in this earth in trapping Satan and being those served by those few in the kingdom ... the narrow strait way of the few [Matt7:14]under the new covenant and the broad way of the many [Rev 7:9-10] through destruction and thus freed from sin in this life by the wages of sin, death, saved by works after being freed from hell [Revelation 20:13] :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Many died sinners in this earth long before Jesus came, they have no possibility of redemption until the resurrection of the unjust , they are freed from sin by its wages paid in death as Paul says [above] and thus judged by works in the kingdom after death as Jesus underlines in Rev 20:13 ... clearly they need no grace and are helped by those few that received it in this life in order to become now perfect priests of God like Jesus ... equally clearly God requires but a few as priests and kings in the kingdom, not everyone can be a saint now ... God has named the yet-divided nation from whom all His priests come , for sake of prophecy to show His power of prediction , not because they are any better than anyone else , but just because God is obliged by declaring they will be first to make it so [hence the new covenant states explicitly that it is with those whose 'fathers' broke the old covenant[Heb 8:8-12], that Israel is forgiven now despite that they were rejected for breaking the old covenant, and that they will be His people and He will be their God ... significantly it also says that theywill not teach each other the truth, but God will teach every one of them Himself the way of His Law [summarised by Jesus as love]
I think it unwise that you be jealous of the few saints of this earth , we all have our role before God , and they are those who will minister to the many sinners of this earth in turn , just as Jesus ministered to them, they may well be the means of our salvation in due course, as images of the son of God, perfected sons in their own right.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Few find the narrow strait way [Matt 7:14] before death, but they are the first before many ... we know the many go by the broad way thrugh destruction in death , but they are saved afterward according to this and to Jesus [Rev7:9-10]

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

If a saint should sin ,then he has indeed Jesus himself to help him stop sinning before Jesus returns , because the Father requires the firstfruit saints of Israel to administer the kingdom for over 12 billion souls that ever lived ... Jesus adminsiters the salvation of 144,000 firstfruits sealed by the holy spirit from the tribes of Israel [Rev 7:3-8] , each of those must rule and minister, in like manner to Jesus, a similar number each in the kingdom, to cover ministry to every man that ever lived , resurrected at the resurrection of the unjust, to be judged by works in the righteous kingdom come .

And you of course are the only person in the entire world who never slips and sins. you are the only person in the entire world who never looses his temper, never never is selfish, never hurts someones feelings , never gets impatient with people, never fails to do exactly what God tells you to do, never fails in any shape form or fashion. amazing, amazing that you believe that that is.
And you of course are the only one in the world who never does anything unloving.

I have never said that I am a saint , but sinners can still read what the saints have written and see that religion not only has, but must, get it wrong, even according to Jesus own words , as I have pointed to... they are not my words and you can read just as well as I what is said, in your own bible .

You create a strawman and knock it down, but it was your false presumption [instead of asking] , I have never pretended to be a saint...

 

[2ducklow]

I have no idea why you think everyone else here thinks the same as you, nor why you should think that I think I am a saint, nor why you imagine that the saints are not saints ... better perhaps to stop guesssing and judging , read the scripture written by saints and Jesus and prphets of God , and stop trying to make it a personal contest to pretend the saints don't exist because they have a better [sooner] resurrection than sinners ... the few saints of this earth have a role in becoming the priests and kings of the kingdom, the sinners have a role in this earth in trapping Satan and being those served by those few in the kingdom ... the narrow strait way of the few [Matt7:14]under the new covenant and the broad way of the many [Rev 7:9-10] through destruction and thus freed from sin in this life by the wages of sin, death, saved by works after being freed from hell [Revelation 20:13] :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Many died sinners in this earth long before Jesus came, they have no possibility of redemption until the resurrection of the unjust , they are freed from sin by its wages paid in death as Paul says [above] and thus judged by works in the kingdom after death as Jesus underlines in Rev 20:13 ... clearly they need no grace and are helped by those few that received it in this life in order to become now perfect priests of God like Jesus ... equally clearly God requires but a few as priests and kings in the kingdom, not everyone can be a saint now ... God has named the yet-divided nation from whom all His priests come , for sake of prophecy to show His power of prediction , not because they are any better than anyone else , but just because God is obliged by declaring they will be first to make it so [hence the new covenant states explicitly that it is with those whose 'fathers' broke the old covenant[Heb 8:8-12], that Israel is forgiven now despite that they were rejected for breaking the old covenant, and that they will be His people and He will be their God ... significantly it also says that theywill not teach each other the truth, but God will teach every one of them Himself the way of His Law [summarised by Jesus as love]
I think it unwise that you be jealous of the few saints of this earth , we all have our role before God , and they are those who will minister to the many sinners of this earth in turn , just as Jesus ministered to them, they may well be the means of our salvation in due course, as images of the son of God, perfected sons in their own right.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Few find the narrow strait way [Matt 7:14] before death, but they are the first before many ... we know the many go by the broad way thrugh destruction in death , but they are saved afterward according to this and to Jesus [Rev7:9-10]



If a saint should sin ,then he has indeed Jesus himself to help him stop sinning before Jesus returns , because the Father requires the firstfruit saints of Israel to administer the kingdom for over 12 billion souls that ever lived ... Jesus adminsiters the salvation of 144,000 firstfruits sealed by the holy spirit from the tribes of Israel [Rev 7:3-8] , each of those must rule and minister, in like manner to Jesus, a similar number each in the kingdom, to cover ministry to every man that ever lived , resurrected at the resurrection of the unjust, to be judged by works in the righteous kingdom come .



I have never said that I am a saint , but sinners can still read what the saints have written and see that religion not only has, but must, get it wrong, even according to Jesus own words , as I have pointed to... they are not my words and you can read just as well as I what is said, in your own bible .

You create a strawman and knock it down, but it was your false presumption [instead of asking] , I have never pretended to be a saint...

You contradict your self and scripture so much I don't think you know straight up.

 

[stranger]

You contradict your self and scripture so much I don't think you know straight up.

First you accuse me of thinking I am a saint without even asking - or apologising when I point out your presumption is wrong and pointless.

Now you accuse me of contradiction without any proof ...

Please just discuss the points and stop attacking me without justification...

Begin then with just one contradiction, and discuss it from scripture without references to me [ad hominem attack], just lets discuss in civil manner and discuss the topic ,not your wild assumptions and accusations of me ...please!

 

[2ducklow]

First of all, sorry for the lateness. Been on the couch with the flu and 2 bottles of Nyquil since Saturday



Start a thread and prove it. Never heard it before. Such a belief impinges Grace.

Haveing posted in UT for as long as you have I'm surprised that you would make such a statement.

He affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved. This is a very important quotation because the heretical idea that souls can be saved in other religions is rampant in Traditional circles, and is taught by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. These groups teach the false and heretical idea that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cach...trinity+to+be+saved&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

some do some don't. but even those that don't tend to hedge on it.

nope



As to the part in bold, I agree.



Mine and several churches of several co-workers
What do they have to do to meet your expectations?



HOw do you know? Are you using what your church does as the example to judge all other churches? Be careful, if you are.

what's the point?

Not even going to bother checking it out, are you...

Check what out?????

Now you're talking just like Stranger.

no not really. you just don't know what I'm saying.

So is this your final explanation of how everthing that God had to say became flesh?

yea , in a nut shell, or if you prefer I could say the meaning is "Jesus is the whole reason for God's creation" same thing. It makes sense unlike your word is a sentinal being that turned into a 2 cell fetus which you call begatting and conceiving. Jesus is god's plan or word for man. he wants us all to be like jesus.

And you don't implore your reasoning that there is only one possible interpretation of certain scriptures that discount trinity? One of us could be in error, blinded or consumed.

there are always more than one possible interpretation of any scripture. one can take any scirputre figuratively or literally, usually one or the other if taken figuratively or literally is so obviously nonsensical as to preclude it, Which actually is the case with your literal interpretation of John 1.1 but you can't see it and I can.

Logical sense is constrained to your reasoning and subjective understanding. This was explicitly shown when I asked you about Jesus revealing Himself; whether it be literal or figurative. Experimentally, for me, it is both.

logical sense isn't subjective. It is objective. 3 is one objectively makes no sense. It's a fact. 3 is one is illogical is a fact. Just as much so as up is down is illogical fact, george is susan is illogical fact. the world is mars is illogical fact.


Again, your subjective experiences are in the way. Your criteria to meet is, God did'nt say trinity. But, GOd did say, The Logos was God. ANd, The Logos became flesh...[/quote] and literally both make no sense but support trinity, and figuratively both make sense and support my doctrine. 3 is one is nonsense. the word or plan of god ultimately found expression with the birth of Jesus makes sense. my doctrine makes sense yours doesn't, but of course you and your side will adamently claim 3 is one makes sense. (although many trinitarians will admit, when pressed, that 3 is one is not comprehensible, i.e makes no sense.)
so there we be stuck.

Maybe you're a doubting THomas?



To my understanding today, I agree with you. I'm not willing to impinge works against Grace by any means.




I beg to differ somewhat. The scriptures point out that the Logos was GOd.

only if taken literally, Jesus said he was a door do you likewise take that literally? Jesus said he is the truth, so is there some sentient being named truth, another one nameword, another one named door, another one named way, and of course all these different sentient beings are one sentient being cause any num ber you chooose is one if you want it to be. why donn't you say that? makes as much sense as your other trintiarian aruments. you always try and pretend like the logos was god can ONLY be interpreted literally. that way you can claim that 2 gods are one god is an unavoidable conclusion. It doesn't matter how many times I point out to you a figurative interpretation, yolu will always pretend like a literal is the only one possible. you have to to hold on to your doctrine.

makes 2 Gods, but we also know that there is only numerically one God. However, trinity is more than a numbers game. Far more.




You're in error. I don't take understanding from fellow trinitarians. Never have.

so you figured trinity out all by yourself.
you really think anyone is gonna believe that?

Really don't mind at all. I once never had a grasp on it either so I understand your position. It may be goofy to you, but again, this is your subjective reasoning at work, not mine.

it's objective reasoning. Just as objective as reasoning that up is down is goofy.

You really can't take the topic of who God is and translate it into counting blocks. God is much bigger than that. And neither can I take an egg, divide it into shell, yoke and egg white and try to explain trinity to you. It does'nt work, it falls way short of the goalpost.

so you can't explain the doctrine you guys dreamed up which god never said but we are suppose to believe it.
[

Are you sure of that? The doctrine of salvation is one of faith. Perhaps you are opened to your error? Or, do you have proof of God that you can prove to me?

If god said he was a trinity then I would have faith that he is a trinity. but since you and your group say god is a trinity and not the bible I must not have faith in it but prove it with scripture. It can't be proven with scripture cause scripture never says it and to prove it with scripture would be to go into the realm of illogic.

Non sensical to you, but makes perfect sense to me. Jesus existed before He existed as a man on earth. Had to have, as John called HIm the Logos who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.[/quote}here you go again, assuming that your interpretation is the only one possible, so therefore the illogic has to be true.

actually the preexistant christ doctrine is reincarnation.



ANd, the Logos became flesh...[/quote a non literal interpetation makes sense , namely that the words of god had their ultimate fullfillness with the birth of Jesus,

Just imagine that logos or word in john 1.1, 14 has the same meaning it does everywhere else in the bible, namely the written or/and oral word of God. that is what I imagine, imagine that. but you guys here and only here say whoops, it don't mean that here, here it means sentient being cause it fits trinity doctrine. sorry charlie, it don't wash.

 

[stranger]

actually the preexistant christ doctrine is reincarnation.

Manifestation may be the explanation of apparent reincarnation , as in the manifestatin of Moses alive to the disciples froinstance, but it is not what most would understand as 'reincarnation' simply because the manifested life does not die [cannot die any longer] Compare for instance with Jesus' second coming.

Thus it is a conflation of two distinct concepts to use the term 'reincarnation' , which means something different [and non-existent in scripture ... resurrection is actually more like reincarnation than manifestation , but that has its differences too - in that man cannot be resurrected more than twice according to scripture , reincarnation implies no such limitation... again there is no written limit on manifstations but the return to spirit after manifestation is by translation, not even possibly by death]

 

[hybrid]

Logos became flesh is commonly called God incarnate in the case of jesus. it is therefore incarnation and not reincarnation. reincarnation is a different doctrine, the vanilla flavor version pertains to an eternal personal soul that undergoes countless rebirths. resurrection is also an entirely different thing. it is the about raising a dead body to life or a dead or sleeping soul to life . imho.

 

[gort]

Glad you're feeling better.

So God's word never existed with him except as a spiritual son, from the beginning. Hmm.

What happened to all that knew from the beginning when he was begotten as a man then?

Huh?

 

[hybrid]

and to prove it with scripture would be to go into the realm of illogic.

in other words there are obvious references to scriptures, only that would be illogical to you.

the problem with your argument is you take logic very trivially.
your naive formula 1+1+1 = 3 as true is derived from arithmetic, a basic but small part of the body of mathematical discipline and math being also only a part ofna wide variety of logical systems.

1 2 3 as sequenced order are axioms or postulates. axioms and postulates are propositions in logic taken as true without investigation or inquiry, iow they are taken as self-evident truths. however, mathematician Godels in his incomplete theorem proved that you cannot prove this self-evident axioms as absolutely true. they are only valid within the context of their system. in the case of 1+1=2, in arithmetic.

a very good example for you to understand what i mean is the case of euclid's postulates. euclid, the inventor of geometry claimed as self evident 2000 or more years ago that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. for thousand of years people accepted it and believed it without question, until einstein came and proved that our space is curved and that physically the shortest distance between two points is a curve.

before you say something is illogical, you should at least understand what logic is in its entirity. arithmetic is a small part of logical system. now we have quantum logic, non-commutative math, non euclidean geometry , spencer brown's laws of forms ( a departure from boolean logic) and a lot more that were counter intuitive but valid as logical systems.

personally i don't think the nature of god is govern by an arithmetic system of thoughts. and for that matter, any other miracles in bible in general. yes, the arithmetic of 1+1+1=3 is a system of thoughts. there in no numeral one in nature, its all in our head. we mistake the map from the territory, eat the menu instead of the meal. all that you can point as one thing is a sum of numerous parts and can be divided infinitely. so anything you can say as one thing is an abstraction and use only as a linguistic convenience for communication. that is the limit of your logic that you bind yourself into

so, your claim that trinity is illogical because it does not obey the rules of arithmetic, in in itself not logically valid. to claim validity, you must first prove that the nature of god is by logical necessity must be under the logical system of arithmetic. good luck, you'll need it. for the creator cannot be under the axioms of its creation. to do so is the same as making god into your image and likeness.

 

[gort]

Haveing posted in UT for as long as you have I'm surprised that you would make such a statement.

My statement was valid. Either open a thread and ask the question or don't.

[/FONT][/SIZE]
salvation || gospel || baptism || catholic || church || faith

some do some don't. but even those that don't tend to hedge on it.

I understand that RC also believe one must be baptized, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, they don't have an answer for the thief on the cross.

what's the point?

YOu're the one who says church services are watered down versions of what God wants? I'm asking how do you know? That's the point. GOt something evidential besides opinion?

Check what out?????

Never mind. It's an exercise in futility of mine.

no not really. you just don't know what I'm saying.

Actually, you are a lot like Stranger. YOu're the one who makes sense out of scripture and I don't.

Duck quotes:
Uh no, you see here is where we fundamentally differ, I make sense out of scripture you don't.

yea , in a nut shell, or if you prefer I could say the meaning is "Jesus is the whole reason for God's creation" same thing. It makes sense unlike your word is a sentinal being that turned into a 2 cell fetus which you call begatting and conceiving. Jesus is god's plan or word for man. he wants us all to be like jesus.

YOur explanation is still lacking and does'nt squelch the trinitarian viewpoint by any means. Creation is because of Jesus is your mantra but does'nt address how all things were made in, through, by, etc, Jesus. Your mantra is valid, of course to an extent but is severly lacking.

there are always more than one possible interpretation of any scripture. one can take any scirputre figuratively or literally, usually one or the other if taken figuratively or literally is so obviously nonsensical as to preclude it, Which actually is the case with your literal interpretation of John 1.1 but you can't see it and I can.

That's because you are like Stranger, only you can make sense out of scripture and I can't.

logical sense isn't subjective. It is objective.

You are confused. Perhaps you mean rational sense? Logic is about form of arguements and statements. Even an arguement/statement can be flawed and the resulting assumptions drawn from a faulty promise still equals flawed. which certainly does'nt make it objective at all.

3 is one objectively makes no sense. It's a fact. 3 is one is illogical is a fact. Just as much so as up is down is illogical fact, george is susan is illogical fact. the world is mars is illogical fact.

But, the bible still says the Word was God. At this point, we still have 2 deities. There is no mention of george is susan in the scriptures so your rationalization is somewhat leaky.


YOu know, even what Jesus taught is paradoxical and I'm afraid logic will end up with a migraine at the end of the day.

Again, your subjective experiences are in the way. Your criteria to meet is, God did'nt say trinity. But, GOd did say, The Logos was God. ANd, The Logos became flesh...

and literally both make no sense but support trinity, and figuratively both make sense and support my doctrine. 3 is one is nonsense. the word or plan of god ultimately found expression with the birth of Jesus makes sense. my doctrine makes sense yours doesn't, but of course you and your side will adamently claim 3 is one makes sense. (although many trinitarians will admit, when pressed, that 3 is one is not comprehensible, i.e makes no sense.)
so there we be stuck.[/QUOTE]

Like I said earlier, trinity is much more than a numbers game. You can't or won't get past the numbers game. YOu can't or won't see that Paul called Jesus the image of the invisible God. You can't see that Jesus held all the attributes that God has and is co-eternal.

only if taken literally, Jesus said he was a door do you likewise take that literally?

Non sequitur. You're coming off like any and all verses must either be literal or figurative. IOW, you say I see John 1 as literal so you make example of Jesus being a door literal. What a dumb thing to do.

Jesus said he is the truth, so is there some sentient being named truth, another one nameword, another one named door, another one named way, and of course all these different sentient beings are one sentient being cause any num ber you chooose is one if you want it to be. why donn't you say that? makes as much sense as your other trintiarian aruments.

Don't get too carried away with this.

you always try and pretend like the logos was god can ONLY be interpreted literally. that way you can claim that 2 gods are one god is an unavoidable conclusion. It doesn't matter how many times I point out to you a figurative interpretation, yolu will always pretend like a literal is the only one possible. you have to to hold on to your doctrine.

I'm afraid it must be simply so. The Logos, whom John is speaking of was made flesh after all and had a name called Jesus. That does sort of make it literal does'nt it? Or do you want to argue that Jesus was figurative?

so you figured trinity out all by yourself.
you really think anyone is gonna believe that?

It's not that difficult.

it's objective reasoning. Just as objective as reasoning that up is down is goofy.

No, it would be subjective reasoning. OPinion is a different game from up and down. Objective would mean empirically provable. You can't even prove that God exists.

so you can't explain the doctrine you guys dreamed up which god never said but we are suppose to believe it.

YOu have a flare for the dramatic or have impaired reading comprehension. There's simply no way to bind the statement I've made to your above answer by any means.

If god said he was a trinity then I would have faith that he is a trinity. but since you and your group say god is a trinity and not the bible I must not have faith in it but prove it with scripture. It can't be proven with scripture cause scripture never says it and to prove it with scripture would be to go into the realm of illogic.

And God never said He was'nt a trinity either. YOur arguement is invalid.

Non sensical to you, but makes perfect sense to me. Jesus existed before He existed as a man on earth. Had to have, as John called HIm the Logos who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.[/quote}here you go again, assuming that your interpretation is the only one possible, so therefore the illogic has to be true.

actually the preexistant christ doctrine is reincarnation.

YOu believe in reincarnation do you?










-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANd, the Logos became flesh...[/quote a non literal interpetation makes sense , namely that the words of god had their ultimate fullfillness with the birth of Jesus,

However, if the Logos became flesh and tabernacled with men, then does this not become literal? It must be a both figurative and literal translation in your view, but in my view the words of God are literal and not figurative, and the birth of Jesus is also literal.

Just imagine that logos or word in john 1.1, 14 has the same meaning it does everywhere else in the bible, namely the written or/and oral word of God. that is what I imagine, imagine that. but you guys here and only here say whoops, it don't mean that here, here it means sentient being cause it fits trinity doctrine. sorry charlie, it don't wash.

After all this time, you are finally starting to open up. I agree with what you imagine. Imagine that, for starts.

I'll continue later.

 

[hybrid]

Just imagine that logos or word in john 1.1, 14 has the same meaning it does everywhere else in the bible, namely the written or/and oral word of God. that is what I imagine, imagine that. .

as much as you want to imagine the word of god as nothing more than the bible or its message, this is obvious because it fits with your doctrine.

jesus christ is the word of god, john made it clear even in his final visions. the bible was clear that by the word of god, world was created. the word of god was responsible or at least instrumental for creation . something we cannot imagine if we equate the word of god with the bible.

but you guys here and only here say whoops, it don't mean that here, here it means sentient being cause it fits trinity doctrine. sorry charlie, it don't wash

without sentience , existence is meaningless. sentience as a qualitative aspect of the creative logos is a logical necessity.

 

[stranger]

without sentience , existence is meaningless. sentience as a qualitative aspect of the creative logos is a logical necessity.

The life of creatures is dependent wholly upon energy ... life as we know it is an irreversible process of the 'degradation' of energy to heat [which then degrades itself as it dissipates to even temperature and becomes useless]

In short the life we know in the flesh is time dependent and time is created ... life is finite in this universe of sentience and depends upon time.

We have no understanding of what life without the created, without time and sentience is for the spirit , for God... we cannot impute sentience for a time-less god.

The 'essence' of God moves us, the spirit, but that is all, it could be no more than the way we manufacture dreams or the way a computer programmer manipulates virtual realities, it does not imply any commonality of essence ... the dream is not like physical reality , they are made of different 'stuff', the virtual reality is controlled, but again it is not of the same 'stuff' as physical reality... the spirit is not made of space-time-matter , the creator is not the same 'stuff' as the created ...

Now we are made in the image of God ,spirit, not God in our image ,flesh, thus when we move on from flesh our spirit returns to God who gave it:-

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

[Consider too what happened to Jesus after his resurrection, he had no second death!]

The spirit is not time-dependent, but sentience is a sequence in time , in fact it is a property of flesh giving rise t consciousness , so not a 'property' of spirit, not a 'property' of God.

God is 'being' in a way we know not , without form, without time, without decay, without food, without senses, without thought , without doing... we should really have different words to use for God because our very speech is time-dependent and keyed to things of this world which cannot really apply to God ... God can have no purpose because purpose is in time , God can know the end of time because he is not within time...

As to our spirit, it would make us love in this world, but the world makes us deny that some of the time... we deny what we are [spirit] by means of our self , thus it is the self that is virtual, transient, in time , not what we are.

Thus the spirit is equally beyond death, it is only the body that is subject to death and the spirit can animate another body in resurrection ...

Equally the spirit cannot be separated from God because it belongs to Him, it cannot be lost as some claim because it has no space or time to be lost in ... our physical reality is thus a virtual reality to the spirit, our flesh is illusory to the spirit because the spirit cannot be flesh , only move flesh , perhaps somewhat like we manipulate dreams or computer characters in virtual reality ...

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

[2ducklow]

in other words there are obvious references to scriptures, only that would be illogical to you.

the problem with your argument is you take logic very trivially.
your naive formula 1+1+1 = 3 as true is derived from arithmetic, a basic but small part of the body of mathematical discipline and math being also only a part ofna wide variety of logical systems.

1 2 3 as sequenced order are axioms or postulates. axioms and postulates are propositions in logic taken as true without investigation or inquiry, iow they are taken as self-evident truths. however, mathematician Godels in his incomplete theorem proved that you cannot prove this self-evident axioms as absolutely true. they are only valid within the context of their system. in the case of 1+1=2, in arithmetic.

a very good example for you to understand what i mean is the case of euclid's postulates. euclid, the inventor of geometry claimed as self evident 2000 or more years ago that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. for thousand of years people accepted it and believed it without question, until einstein came and proved that our space is curved and that physically the shortest distance between two points is a curve.

before you say something is illogical, you should at least understand what logic is in its entirity. arithmetic is a small part of logical system. now we have quantum logic, non-commutative math, non euclidean geometry , spencer brown's laws of forms ( a departure from boolean logic) and a lot more that were counter intuitive but valid as logical systems.

personally i don't think the nature of god is govern by an arithmetic system of thoughts.

Here is your fundamental flaw. trinity has a list of 3 gods, one uses arithmatic to add up the number of Gods you have and you come up with 3 not one. the nature of God isn't the quantity of God. quantity is not nature. so all your non arithmatic examples are irrelevant to adding up the gods in your list.

and for that matter, any other miracles in bible in general. yes, the arithmetic of 1+1+1=3 is a system of thoughts. there in no numeral one in nature, its all in our head. we mistake the map from the territory, eat the menu instead of the meal. all that you can point as one thing is a sum of numerous parts and can be divided infinitely. so anything you can say as one thing is an abstraction and use only as a linguistic convenience for communication. that is the limit of your logic that you bind yourself into

so, your claim that trinity is illogical because it does not obey the rules of arithmetic, in in itself not logically valid. to claim validity, you must first prove that the nature of god is by logical necessity must be under the logical system of arithmetic. good luck, you'll need it. for the creator cannot be under the axioms of its creation. to do so is the same as making god into your image and likeness.

then you make numbers meaningless when talking about god. when god said he is one, it is meaningless cause you are saying in effect numbers have no meaning when talking about god.

 

[2ducklow]

YOu're the one who makes sense out of scripture and I don't.

True, glad you admit it.

YOur explanation is still lacking and does'nt squelch the trinitarian viewpoint by any means. Creation is because of Jesus is your mantra but does'nt address how all things were made in, through, by, etc, Jesus. Your mantra is valid, of course to an extent but is severly lacking.

no verse says all things were created by Jesus. the bible says all things were created in, through, and unto Jesus. Trinitarian bible translators just change the greek prep. for in and through to by. And by Jesus christ in eph. 3.9 is a spurious addition.


Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;ASV

the evidence is overwhelming that 'by Jesus christ' is spurious in this verse.

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:KJV

one has to talk about trinity and spurious scripture in the same breath usually.

That's because you are like Stranger, only you can make sense out of scripture and I can't.

Nah, you probably make sense out of scripture anywhere else but the subject of trinity or Jesus is god doctrines. for example you would never say there is one way to salvation, Jesus Christ and then conclude ah ha, there are 3 ways. you only do that illogic with trinity.

You are confused. Perhaps you mean rational sense? Logic is about form of arguements and statements. Even an arguement/statement can be flawed and the resulting assumptions drawn from a faulty promise still equals flawed. which certainly does'nt make it objective at all.

so you think it is a matter of subjective opinion that 3 is 3 and not one? If so that would mean everything is subjective.

But, the bible still says the Word was God. At this point, we still have 2 deities. There is no mention of george is susan in the scriptures so your rationalization is somewhat leaky.

you have two choices either their are two dieties (your choice) or the verse is figurative and means the same thing as saying 'Your words are you gort'. you can't admit their is a figurative possiblity no matter how many times I point it out to you. Pretty big blind spot you have there.\

YOu know, even what Jesus taught is paradoxical and I'm afraid logic will end up with a migraine at the end of the day.

a paradox is an apparant contradiction, not an actual one, 3 is one is an acutal contradiction.

Like I said earlier, trinity is much more than a numbers game. You can't or won't get past the numbers game. YOu can't or won't see that Paul called Jesus the image of the invisible God. You can't see that Jesus held all the attributes that God has and is co-eternal.

you say there are 2 dieties, but 2 is one. your numbers game is 2 is one. you have a numbers game . My numbers game is 2 is 2 and 3 is 3. we each have different numbers games. having a numbers game where any number is any number you want it to be isn't getting past the numbers game it is inventing a new numbers game with no logic to it except illogic. IN your arithmatic 3 is one and 3 is 3 cause you want 3 to be 3 and one, but you don't want 3 to be 235 so in your arithmatic 3 is not 235. we have totally different arithamtic rules.

Non sequitur. You're coming off like any and all verses must either be literal or figurative. IOW, you say I see John 1 as literal so you make example of Jesus being a door literal. What a dumb thing to do.

No, it is not dumb. Jesus is figuratively a door, a shepard manna from heaven, the way, the truth, and the word. you accept some of these as figurative and some literal. I accept all as being figurative cause figuratively it makes sense and literally it results in Jesus being a loaf of bread a door, etc. you can accept door as being figurative but say I do something dumb by saying that word should be considered figurative too. why is it dumb? cause it makes sense? Jesus literally being god's word makes no sense, Jesus literally being a door, makes no sense as well. how is that dumb? cause it is logical of course.

Don't get too carried away with this.



I'm afraid it must be simply so. The Logos, whom John is speaking of was made flesh after all and had a name called Jesus. That does sort of make it literal does'nt it? Or do you want to argue that Jesus was figurative?

that doesnt make it literal you do. Jesus is not figurative, but flesh is figurative of Jesus, and the whole expression is likewise figurative and not literal. certainly it is a biblical truth that Jesus is God's plan for man, and that he word of god is god's plan for man. It is also true that all the things god said in the bible find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. We are to be like Jesus and mold ourselves after the pattarn son. so even if you disagree with me that that is the meaning of John 1.1, and 1.14, it is still a biblical truth found elsewhere in the bible.

It's not that difficult.





No, it would be subjective reasoning. OPinion is a different game from up and down. Objective would mean empirically provable. You can't even prove that God exists.

I can prove that 3 is 3 and not one. that is objective. Proving god exists is different from adding up the dieties on your list. one uses arithmatic to addup persons, dieties etc on a list, you use your arithmatic that any number is any number you want it to be to add up the gods on your list. we just each use different arithmatic rules.

YOu have a flare for the dramatic or have impaired reading comprehension. There's simply no way to bind the statement I've made to your above answer by any means.




And God never said He was'nt a trinity either. YOur arguement is invalid.

the point is that anything that isn't said in the bible, such as trinity, incarnation , or whatever, has to be proven logically, and made sense of, and should not be accepted by faith. only exactly what God said should be taken by faith.

YOu believe in reincarnation do you?

No I'm saying that the preexistant christ doctrine is really a reincarnation doctrine. reincarnation means someone changing from one being to another being, like forever being born first a human, then a frog, then a deer, then a cow, then a eagle, then a man or woman againg, Well Jesus, in trintiy goes from being a spirit being (word) then he is born a man. now he dies. so In trinity, Jesus has taken the first step in the reincarnation process. surprising, well actually no it isn't, that you can't see this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------





However, if the Logos became flesh and tabernacled with men, then does this not become literal? It must be a both figurative and literal translation in your view, but in my view the words of God are literal and not figurative, and the birth of Jesus is also literal.

so your point is that in a sentence God cannot and never does use figurative and literal language. that is not true. 'the word became flesh" . Even accepting your intepretation, you interpret it literally and figuratively. You interpret the word to literally be the word of God and you interpret flesh figuratively to mean Jesus christ (including his bones and body fat and not just his flesh.)

After all this time, you are finally starting to open up. I agree with what you imagine. Imagine that, for starts.

I'll continue later.

 

[2ducklow]

as much as you want to imagine the word of god as nothing more than the bible or its message, this is obvious because it fits with your doctrine.

the bible clearly identifies the word as being the written and/ or oral words of god. there are no verses identifying the word as some spirit being, that is your literal interpretation of verses that are obviously meant figuratively. like john 1.1 and 14. your only proof that they are literal is merely your asssertion that they have to be literal cause literally it makes no sense and we shouldn't make sense when talking about god cause he is beyond our abilities. well I assert that they have to be figurative cause literally they make no sense and we should use the logic and ability to make sense out of god's word instead of ignoring our brain. your brain tells you that 3 is not one whether you believe it or not. you can't escape that cause god gave you a logical brain . God did n ot give you an illogical brain. So I say use your brain and you say , in effect, ignore your brain.

jesus christ is the word of god, john made it clear even in his final visions. the bible was clear that by the word of god, world was created. the word of god was responsible or at least instrumental for creation . something we cannot imagine if we equate the word of god with the bible.

figuratively one can.
]

 

[gort]

No I'm saying that the preexistant christ doctrine is really a reincarnation doctrine. reincarnation means someone changing from one being to another being, like forever being born first a human, then a frog, then a deer, then a cow, then a eagle, then a man or woman againg, Well Jesus, in trintiy goes from being a spirit being (word) then he is born a man. now he dies. so In trinity, Jesus has taken the first step in the reincarnation process. surprising, well actually no it isn't, that you can't see this.

Reincarnation is of another philosophy than christianity. You trying to invent a new slant on anti-trinitarianism isn't worth my time to argue against.

so your point is that in a sentence God cannot and never does use figurative and literal language. that is not true. 'the word became flesh" . Even accepting your intepretation, you interpret it literally and figuratively. You interpret the word to literally be the word of God and you interpret flesh figuratively to mean Jesus christ (including his bones and body fat and not just his flesh.)

I make no such point whatsoever as you claim. I interpret the Logos to be both figurative and literal. In the literal and figurative and everything inbetween, Paul said Jesus was the image of the invisible God. Figuratively, Jesus said, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Trinitarianism does not claim that Jesus is the Father; therefore not literal in the sense that Jesus is the Father, but literal in all other ways because Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus had all the attributes that God has. The Logos is a reflection of who God is. The Logos is a reflection of God. What you or I speak or what our thoughts are is a reflection of who we are. They define us.

Literally, the Logos was made flesh and dwelt with man. The Logos has eternally existed because the Word of God has always existed

Your problem is you don't believe Jesus/Logos existed as a sentient being prior to being made flesh and dwelling with man. Perhaps the only way to rectify this is to find out how you would interpret this:

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

How does a being make a statement as this showing cognizance of a pre-existence with His Father before the world was if such a being was not sentient?

 

[2ducklow]

I make no such point whatsoever as you claim. I interpret the Logos to be both figurative and literal. In the literal and figurative and everything inbetween,

Then I misunderstood this that you said.

However, if the Logos became flesh and tabernacled with men, then does this not become literal? It must be a both figurative and literal translation in your view, but in my view the words of God are literal and not figurative, and the birth of Jesus is also literal.

Apparently what you meant was that john 1.14 is all literal and not figurative, but that is not true for you take flesh to represent Jesus which is a metonymy which is figurative.

Paul said Jesus was the image of the invisible God. Figuratively, Jesus said, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Trinitarianism does not claim that Jesus is the Father; therefore not literal in the sense that Jesus is the Father, but literal in all other ways because Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus had all the attributes that God has. The Logos is a reflection of who God is. The Logos is a reflection of God. What you or I speak or what our thoughts are is a reflection of who we are. They define us.

And the part you said above that I put in bold is what I believe the meaning of “the word was god” is.

Literally, the Logos was made flesh and dwelt with man. The Logos has eternally existed because the Word of God has always existed

actually was made is incorrect, the greek word means became not was made, it is the greek word egeneto, which occurs to many numerous times in the NT to count. (hyperbole)

the logos is the word of God, so the logos has always existed as the word of God because it is the word of god, same thing.

Your problem is you don't believe Jesus/Logos existed as a sentient being prior to being made flesh and dwelling with man. Perhaps the only way to rectify this is to find out how you would interpret this:

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


How does a being make a statement as this showing cognizance of a pre-existence with His Father before the world was if such a being was not sentient?

At first glance that would be the obvious interpretation. But several problems exist with your interpretation, actually numerous ones, but I’ll just the ones that directly bear upon your false interpretation.

• why did Jesus say the glory he had before the world was and not the glory he had before he was born? Did he loose his glory when God created the world.?
• the Greek word translated world is kosmos which means world system, so the meaning is the glory he had before Adam sinned. Because the world system began after the fall of man into sin.
• joohn 17. 22 just afew verses latter states that Jesus gave us this glory that god gave him in verse 5. John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;
• john 17.5 , the verse you are referring to, says that the glory Jesus is asking for is the glory of God’s own self. Jesus already had the glory of God’s own self thoughout his ministry, that’s how he was able to do all the miracles he did. So really Jesus is here asking for the glory of god’s own self for us, his body. So in that sense he is asking for himself, but the head of his body, Jesus already had it. Just his body didn’t have the glory of God’s own self, I have the glory of god’s own self because Jesus gave it to me in john 17.22. and I accept that gift.
• John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. You read it like it says ‘glorify thou me with my own glory I had with thee before the world was” it doesn’t say that.

 

[gort]

why did Jesus say the glory he had before the world was and not the glory he had before he was born? Did he loose his glory when God created the world.?

The point is cognizance of something held before the world was.

the Greek word translated world is kosmos which means world system, so the meaning is the glory he had before Adam sinned. Because the world system began after the fall of man into sin.

It also means the world, the universe

joohn 17. 22 just afew verses latter states that Jesus gave us this glory that god gave him in verse 5. John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

Non-sequitur; has no bearing on the pre-existence of Jesus

john 17.5 , the verse you are referring to, says that the glory Jesus is asking for is the glory of God’s own self. Jesus already had the glory of God’s own self thoughout his ministry, that’s how he was able to do all the miracles he did. So really Jesus is here asking for the glory of god’s own self for us, his body. So in that sense he is asking for himself, but the head of his body, Jesus already had it. Just his body didn’t have the glory of God’s own self, I have the glory of god’s own self because Jesus gave it to me in john 17.22. and I accept that gift.

Non-sequitur; has no bearing on the pre-existence of Jesus which is the point of topic

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. You read it like it says ‘glorify thou me with my own glory I had with thee before the world was” it doesn’t say that.

The point is cognizance of something held before the world was which can only be recognized by a sentient being. Stick to the topic of the pre-existence of Jesus; something you deny but are currently being shown to be true.

 

[2ducklow]

The point is cognizance of something held before the world was.

which doesn’t answer my question. Why didn’t he say the glory he had before he was born. Saying the glory he had before the world implys he didn’t have that glory from the time the world began till he was born, which would negate the doctrine that Jesus is god.

It also means the world, the universe

True so the context desides which meaning is in view.

Non-sequitur; has no bearing on the pre-existence of Jesus

John 17.22 says what Jesus did with the glory he asked for in john 17.5 , he gave it to us, therefore, john 17.5 doesn’t prove that Jesus is god, because he gave us the same glory he asked God for, to us, Your preexistant Christ doctrine is that he preexisted as God, therefore john 17.22 negates that interpretation of john 17.5

Non-sequitur; has no bearing on the pre-existence of Jesus which is the point of topic

does too. It proves that Jesus is not god because of the glory of god’s own self that he asked for for us. Your preexistant Christ doctrine is that Christ preexisted as god. This verse cannot be used for that proof for this reason. It was us, his body that existed before the world system that had the glory of God’s own self. They lost it , jesus asked for it in verse 5 and gave it back to us, his body in verse 22, disproving the preexistant Christ doctrine being anywhere in john 17.5. because we are the ones who had the glory of god’s own self before the world system began, not Jesus, Jesus didn’t exist when the world system began, Jesus was a sacred secret only later revealed at his genesis. (matthew 1.220.

The point is cognizance of something held before the world was which can only be recognized by a sentient being. Stick to the topic of the pre-existence of Jesus; something you deny but are currently being shown to be true.

And I showed you how that sentient being can only be us, i.e. adam. Jesus spoke as a stand in for the first adam who lost the glory of god’s own self which began the world system. Jesus is the only one who has the right to ask for it for us, which he did in verse 5, and gave it to us in verse .22. Jesus was a stand in for the first adam at his baptism, here asking for the glory of God’s own self for us his body, and at his crucifixtion. Baptism is for the remission of sins, jesus had no sin so he had no need for baptism. He was baptized in our place, Jesus had no need to ask for the glory of God’s own self, he always had it through out his life, he was askingfor it as a stand in for the first adam. Jesus had no need to be cruxified for sin, he was crucified as a stand in for the first adam, at which time he became legally sin.

All my explanations, which you call non sequiter show how your interpretation cannot be correct. Your only response is to ignore it.

in short, john 17.22 and the exact wording of john 17.5 can only be interpeted to mean that Jesus is speakingas a stand in for the first adam, us. your response is merely to ignore it with non sequitor.