ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 2300
Feb 15 10 4:59 PM
Bible Believer
The Trinity is just a philosophy and theory about what God is.
Posts: 1837
Feb 15 10 5:01 PM
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Posts: 7270
Feb 16 10 11:52 AM
FHII wrote:"Second, there are numerous passages that speak of him having to remain in heaven until his still-future coming, yet the Holy Spirit is here now. Is that not a "distinction"? "Not when Jesus said I will never leave you or forsake you. Not when we are the Body of Christ, not the Body of the Holy Spirit.
"This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499-500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternal."
Posts: 3482
Feb 16 10 12:34 PM
<GBV>"MY sheep HEAR MY VOICE"? no surprise you REJECT THIS "WORD OF GOD". you only demonstrate how "ye foolish and blind" truly are.
<where in THE BIBLE does IT SAY we should not accept words just because they are not found in the canon of SCRIPTURE?>
Once again cultist you contradict yourself. And 2 Timothy 3:16 is crystal clear to the "BELIEVER" regarding what is "PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE", and IT IS "SCRIPTURE". you prove again that you "BELIEVETH NOT'.
Posts: 1090
Feb 16 10 12:47 PM
Posts: 1861
Feb 16 10 4:06 PM
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.
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?
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
If they had the true church in mind, they would have never come up with a creed,
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.
I never said that being in our fleshly tabernacles meant we are not members of that body
"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.
Just clearing up the confusion you are causing.
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...
Feb 16 10 4:54 PM
Feb 16 10 6:14 PM
Feb 16 10 6:55 PM
Posts: 176
Feb 16 10 7:40 PM
Feb 16 10 10:21 PM
<If you ever reached a point about the GODHEAD that YOU answered all the questions, I think that would be proof in itself that YOU went astray somewhere>
The day that YOU THINK you have the knowledge(i.e. man made words, traditions, creeds, etc.) to answer WHO GOD IS, better than GOD HAS DONE in "THE WORD OF GOD" is when you are completely astray from HIM. "by their FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM"
Feb 16 10 11:22 PM
Like I said, you are seeing things my way a little bit!
Yes, I admit that the Bible appears and often times does treat them as the different and distinct and separate. Yet the end product is that they are not. You have to hear the conclusion of the whole matter.
Does the Trinity theory fully explain who God is? By it's own definition it doesn't.
I do however, remove the distinctions because I don't see them in the overall scope of the Bible.
I'd still like an answer to that question, but I won't wait for one. It is not answerable because the Bible clearly says Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Yet the Father is supposed to be "not the HG".
Yes it's still ok in that it moves forward, but when the questions the theory brings up question the theory itself, the theory must be questioned.
My point was that if anyone in the Bible had said "Trinity" or said that these three are distinct, separate and not the same, I'd be on board. That is my only problem with the Trinity doctrine... Calling them distinct and separate.
Really, I don't see what the problem is. I refuse to call them separate or distinct! That's it! And nothing in your post has lead me to question that.
That's a bit innaccurate. it IS fully intended to, but it fails to do so. The Trinity doctrine admits it can't but intends to do so.
You have all but admitted it is just a theory. You said it doesn't fully explain God.
Theories have truth but not all truth until they are proven. As far as I can see, even the doctrine itself admits it's incomplete and doesn't have all the answers.
So my questions to you now are if I reject the Trinity, am I in danger of judgement on that issue? Is this something God has said I must believe or I'l be damned?
The doctrine itself admits it, and thus by it's own admittance makes it invalid.
It is only blasphemy against the Catholic Church, which ain't a real bad thing!
Feb 16 10 11:26 PM
Tell you what I'm going to do...I'm going to write some sermons on the subjects we have covered, that way you can get the whole scope of my thinking, and if you have any questions afterward, then you can ask me
I will tell you why, it is becase they may call Christ THEIR LORD or A LORD, but they do not say that he is THE LORD.
So, at worst some of these so-called mormons are like you, not obeying the Scripture that tells us to not add to or take away from the words of the prophecy of the Book.
Feb 17 10 1:34 AM
Feb 17 10 8:40 AM
FHII wrote:"God The Father is an individual Personage. God The Son Jesus Christ is an individual Personage. God The Holy Spirit is an individual Personage. But all three of them make up the one Godhead. While we cannot begin to understand all there is to know of God, we can see from His word that there are three individuals in the Godhead, and trying to deny this FACT is BLASPHEMY. "You and RCC Tim ever get tired of being grumpy? Just wondering?Blashemy against whom? God or the theory? You said in another post God doesn't have faith (but full knowledge).... You are partially correct, except you have no understanding of faith. Faith s more than believing. God doesn't have theories but 100% Truth. He doesn't have theories or doctrines that no one can understand. Trinitarians have a theory no one can fully understand. It has holes in it's understanding, and is totally wrong in saying that the three are separate and distinct. The Bible says so. The doctrine itself admits it, and thus by it's own admittance makes it invalid. A theory that is vague and includes it's vagueness in it's own definition.... Come on! Reasonable people either reject it, hold out for a better theory or at least admit it's just a theory and believe it, but don't call it 100% correct. That's what reasonable thinking people do.It is only blasphemy against the Catholic Church, which ain't a real bad thing!
Feb 17 10 12:10 PM
Feb 17 10 1:01 PM
Feb 17 10 6:12 PM
Feb 17 10 8:43 PM
Feb 17 10 9:41 PM
While I am ever learning, I haven't changed either. Can you indicate where I have changed my view on this in the last few days?
Well, Brian, if I have to explain to you what hearing the conclusion of the whole matter is, then further discussion certainly won't do anything.
So did the Father impregnate Mary or did the HG? You gave an answer, but the answer didn't answer the question.
Really Brian, the rest of the conversation is irrelevant without you understanding concepts as looking at the whole of the matter.
It's kind of like concluding that Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday. When you look at all available evidence, it proves not to be true.
Share This