FHII

Because Isaiah 9:6 says Jesus is the everasting father and now you are saying he's the HG, which I believe as well.  The difference is that I don't make a distinction and Trinitarians do. While at the same time saying they don't, but do.  But not really.


I am not saying the "Son" is the "Holy Spirit", I am saying both the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same God. Yes, I understand you have a problem with Trinitarianism making a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Last week you said "I do understand they are saying they are the same.  Yet separate.  Yet the same.  But still separate and distinct. That I reject." (emphasis added) but the very same day you also said "While I admit that Jesus and the Bible talk as if they are separate at times, many times Jesus and the Bible talks as if they are not separate." Trinitarianism is only making the distinction that scripture itself makes, which you admitted it makes. I cannot understand why you "reject" what you admit scripture itself does.


My thing is I refuse to put three faces on God.  Trinitarians want to say he is three persons, yet one.  I just say he's one.  Why even bother saying he's three if in the end you say he's one?


Because, as you admit, scripture still makes a distinction between three. Why does it even bother making a distinction between three if in the end he is only one?


  Why say there is just one when in the end you will say they are three?  I'm not clouded in that confusion.   You are...


I am not clouded at all. Just because you don't understand orthodox Trinitarianism does not mean the problem is with orthodox Trinitarianism.


Now who was Jesus' daddy.  Jesus being eternal and the alpha and the omega?  But who was the father?  Was it the Holy Ghost who overshadowed Mary or the Father?  


Your questions are great, and I am more than willing to work through these types of questions with you. Jesus is the "Son", and Jesus is "God". The "Father" is his Father, who is God. The "Holy Spirit", who is God, overshadowed Mary. If you try to take the distinctions so far as to end up with three different beings, of course it falls apart, and you end up with a polytheistic mess. If you remove the distinctions, it also falls apart and you end up with a modalistic mess. Trinitarianism is the monotheistice view that fully agrees with the distinctions that scripture itself makes.


I've got many other questions that can only be skirted away like Isaiah 9:6, which never really fully answer the question.  Answers yes, but only answers that lead to more questions.


There is nothing wrong with "more questions". If you ever reached a point about the Godhead where you answered all the questions, I think that would be proof in itself that you went astray somewhere.


Since it is not in the Bible but a fact it was a term man made up to try to comprehend God, I will reject it.   


That is your choice. Why not make the same choice with other doctrinal words that are not in the "Bible", like "Bible" itself?


Once again, I do not deny the the Father, Son or Holy Ghost.... I'm just looking for proof that they are separate "whatevers".  Sure, on earth, they appear to be separate.


On earth they appear to be separate, but you "reject" any distinction? Do you think God is bearing false witness against himself? Trying to fool us?


What about in Heaven?  Are they separate there?  That's a philosopical question I don't expect a Trinitarian to fully be able to answer.


Revelation and other passages show visions of heaven, where the distinction still exists.


The Trinity is just a philosophy and theory about what God is.  It cannot (by it's own admission, I might add) fully explain who and what God is.


It is not intended to "fully explain" who and what God is. No human explanation can. All it does is provide an explanation of some of the aspects that God has chosen to reveal about himself.


I'll hold out for the real answer and not bother to pay attention to those who say I'm in danger because I reject it, and treat it as actual Doctrine from God.  It isn't.


Yet you yourself said "Jesus and the Bible talk as if they are separate at times". Reject it at your own peril.

______________________________________________


Jerry


I use words that aren't in Scripture all the time in casual speech. Yet when teaching and correcting brethren on doctrine, or prophesy, we should stick to the words of Scripture for it is written...


I am not talking about "casual speech". "Bible", "canon", "sermon", etc. are definitely doctrinal term, and not just "casual speech".


You are still not understanding. The one body is not what you discern it to be. I never argued against the doctrine of there being one body, yet as per the creeds, it is not speaking of that one body in heaven, it is speaking of a Catholic church here in earth, and there is none, not of God anyway for God's dwelling is in Christ in heaven as it is written.


Jerry, you do not understand what I have been saying. Whether the one body is also in heaven or not (which I agree it is, by the way), the fact remains that it is also on earth, for Paul was talking to living humans when he said they were part of that body. The Creeds do not mention the "one body", scripture does! You have argued against the doctrine of there being one body, for you said "There is not one catholic (universal) church", "we are not one universal catholic church", "Yet my church is not of a universal church of the whole world", etc. Also, do not confuse "catholic" with "Catholic".


If they had the true church in mind, they would have never come up with a creed,


"They" being the writings of Paul where he refers to one body, one church?

As we are here in this earth, we have our differing opinion for we do not know all things, yet we do know all things as we are in Christ already. We are still sinners, yet in our Father's eyes we are sinless, and this is the truth.


Our imperfections and disagreements on non-primary doctrines do not affect our membership of the one body. A pretribber and a posttribber, a tongues-for-today and an tongues-cessationist, a teetotaller and a person that has an occasional drink of wine, a one-archangel believer and a three-archangels believer and a seven-archangels believer - they can all be members of that one body.

However, there are primary doctrines which, by definition, determine membership in that one body. Mormons call Christ "Lord" (1 Cor 12:3b) and affirm he "is come in the flesh" (2 John 1:7). So why aren't they part of the body? Seriously Jerry, please answer this question - I am not asking it rhetorically.


I never said that being in our fleshly tabernacles meant we are not members of that body


Yes you did. You said "because of our limitations of the flesh we are not one universal catholic church".


"You quote Eph 4:14 at me Jerry. Are you saying that it's wrong to change one's views on doctrine?"

It is wrong to exchange one's faith in the plain reading of the Scriptures for men's ideas....or winds of doctrine.


I agree. That's not what I did. Trinitarianism fits with the plain reading of scripture - all of scripture taken together. Before I studied and accepted Trinitarianism in detail, there were some scriptures that "fit" my understanding perfectly, but others that did not.


Just clearing up the confusion you are causing.


A calculus professor can easily cause confusion, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.


The Lord is that Spirit. His fleshly body is not with us, but he is as his name is Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us. That man that was carried up to the Father is with us alway as he said, for not only is he man, he is that Spirit as he is also our Father in heaven. He is God through and through for he is not only the Way, but also the Truth and the Life. He is not only the Advocate, but he is also the Judge, and also the sinless man on trial. Think of this....Jesus taught us to pray....Our Father which art in heaven....yet he also says this...


Normally, I would say that a Trinitarian would say "Amen!" to all those words. However, because I know that you personally deny that "the Word was made flesh" and think rather that "the Word put on meat coveralls", I cannot agree with the meaning you have behind those words.


Brian