Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
    The trinity doctrine came from the Catholics. That should tell you to question it.
    This is also ignorance of history of dogma, church history, Scripture. The view predates Catholics, for sure (and Constantine).

    Your credibility decreases by the minute. You are as ignorant as JWs on this subject (if you ever saw there anti-trinity booklet, you would realize this...they quit publishing it because counter-cult ministries decimated their arguments, ignorance, shoddy scholarship, dishonesty quoting credible scholars wrongly, etc.).

    I smell a fish...
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
      You speak a lot of nothing.
      There are points here that you need to hear. You cannot refute them, so you wave your hand to dismiss them. AMR will school you, but you will not realize it.
      Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

      They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
      I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

      Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

      "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

      The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
        Many think the Catholics determined what books were to be included in the Bible, because they over the centuries publicly listed the books that they used. They gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.

        Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.
        Canonicity, history of dogma, textual criticism, etc. are not as simplistic as you think.

        Why do you refuse to tell us what group or church or writer you identify with? If we wanted to become believers in Christ and attend a local church or fellowship with the truth, where would we go?

        If it is just you, Jesus, and the Bible, we have heard that before by endless nut jobs who are misled and misleading.
        Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

        They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
        I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

        Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

        "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

        The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by godrulz View Post
          The last point AMR made was that it is unexplainable in the sense that we need revelation vs raw reason (same applies to many other truths about God). It also means that the finite cannot exhaustively grasp the infinite. It is not a mystery (no revelation) and we can say much truth about the triune understanding and defend its parameters. The same can be said about the existence of God that we accept. It is unexplainable, but we accept that He is uncreated Creator, contrary to reason, but true because of revelation that is reality. Before the statement you isolate out of context, he gave much detail about the trinity, but you told him to quit giving evidence?!

          You are not reasonable and I think you should be put out of your misery on this debate because there are better champions of your general view (David Bernard is the guy to engage academically, not GT; likewise Anthony Buzzard is the credible guy for Unitarianism, not two bit guys here like oatmeal).
          Move on GR. You admit your beliefs cannot be explained. Again, move on. You are only here to be insulting.
          Oh how I love the Word of God!

          Do not just read the word do it.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by godrulz View Post
            This is also ignorance of history of dogma, church history, Scripture. The view predates Catholics, for sure (and Constantine).

            Your credibility decreases by the minute. You are as ignorant as JWs on this subject (if you ever saw there anti-trinity booklet, you would realize this...they quit publishing it because counter-cult ministries decimated their arguments, ignorance, shoddy scholarship, dishonesty quoting credible scholars wrongly, etc.).

            I smell a fish...
            You are smelling yourself.
            Oh how I love the Word of God!

            Do not just read the word do it.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
              Many think the Catholics determined what books were to be included in the Bible, because they over the centuries publicly listed the books that they used. They gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.

              Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.
              Yeah, that's all fine and dandy, heard it before, but you cannot find that interlocking web of support for all of the New Testament books. For starters, none of the Gospels have the names of their supposed authors inscribed therein--we have to take it on faith that the oral traditions later recorded in post-apostolic writings got it right as to their authorship. Also in circulation at the time were writings attributed to Peter, Thomas, and Paul that we only have from the then-contemporary Church that were rejected as spurious--we have to trust they got that call right. Then there are some writings that were kept in that were subjects of some dispute--Hebrews and the Revelation of John among them. We have to trust the Church made the right call. As much as I'd like there to be a God-authored Table of Contents of the New Testament, there simply isn't, unless you trust the decision of the Body of Christ, which decided before forming the Canon that God is a Trinity.
              "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
                Move on GR. You admit your beliefs cannot be explained. Again, move on. You are only here to be insulting.
                My beliefs can and have been explained. The only thing true for both of us is that we cannot understand God exhaustively, but we can know much revealed truth about Him.
                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Brother Vinny View Post
                  But when he gets his spiritual body, will it be legless?

                  You basically moved the timing of the issue while dodging the meat of the question. Nice work.
                  I have not done what you say.

                  Do you really think a saved person will be raised legless?
                  Oh how I love the Word of God!

                  Do not just read the word do it.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
                    I have not done what you say.

                    Do you really think a saved person will be raised legless?
                    Did the glorified Jesus have a gaping wound where a Roman soldier pierced His human body?
                    "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                      My beliefs can and have been explained. The only thing true for both of us is that we cannot understand God exhaustively, but we can know much revealed truth about Him.
                      Jesus is God, and since he is God, he is also the Father. For there is only ONE GOD, and He is the Father.

                      1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

                      Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

                      Your trinity doctrine says there is One God the Father, and another God Jesus Christ. That is error.
                      Oh how I love the Word of God!

                      Do not just read the word do it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Brother Vinny View Post
                        Did the glorified Jesus have a gaping wound where a Roman soldier pierced His human body?
                        Jesus rose from the dead and showed himself to his disciples. He showed himself to the disciples with the same body he had when he died.


                        John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
                        Oh how I love the Word of God!

                        Do not just read the word do it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
                          Jesus is God, and since he is God, he is also the Father. For there is only ONE GOD, and He is the Father.

                          1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

                          Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

                          Your trinity doctrine says there is One God the Father, and another God Jesus Christ. That is error.
                          You are mixing modalism and Arianism/Unitarianism. Like it or not, those verses are fully consistent with the trinity that you misunderstand and reject. You also selectively ignore the verses that undermine your view.
                          Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                          They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                          I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                          Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                          "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                          The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FraterJoseph View Post
                            can someone please state for me AMR and GT positions?

                            who is arguing what side of the debate?

                            In laymans terms please
                            AMR is a trinitarian. Trinitarians say Jesus is God, but not the Father. They also say Jesus is God but not the Holy Spirit.

                            I believe that Jesus is God, and therefore the Father, and the Holy Spirit who also is God.
                            Oh how I love the Word of God!

                            Do not just read the word do it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by God's Truth View Post
                              Jesus rose from the dead and showed himself to his disciples. He showed himself to the disciples with the same body he had when he died.
                              So, when did He go back to the spiritual body? (Or has that happened yet?) And where did His physical body go when He was finished with it?
                              "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                                You are mixing modalism and Arianism/Unitarianism. Like it or not, those verses are fully consistent with the trinity that you misunderstand and reject. You also selectively ignore the verses that undermine your view.
                                Stop confusing the discussion. You are only stating worthless opinions.
                                Oh how I love the Word of God!

                                Do not just read the word do it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X