The Trinity

[Lon]

I think you over read my intended meaning. But I will respond anyway. Love doesn't require you to hammer where hammers fail or even prove counterproductive. Yes, there is time to step away, but maybe not for the end result you might assume.

He is either the chief Cornerstone or the Rock of stumbling. Hammers are good things, they are just tools. It is the intention in the hands. Titus 3:10 for me....

 

[Lon]

None of this has anything to do with this thread as you yourself already claimed.
You have now succeeded in derailing this thread with all of your accusations and slanders.
Please stop attacking me and others: it is you who should be reported.

:nono: It started with you butting in:

It was when I stopped assuming that Trinitarianism died . . .
Actually I should say that the Father put it to death because it was killing me.
He kills and makes alive, (at the same time).

My response to what is antiscriptural was appropriate.

Then here again:

:thumb: And once that 40,000 or more has been paid the natural man who paid it will generally never admit that he wasted his money; and so the doctrine sticks, like it or not, because the pride and prestige of a highly valued education must be maintained. It would be like Hal Lindsey apologizing for his false statements in the Late Great Planet Earth: if he did so how many people would have continued buying his books? Aint gonna happen when the almighty dollar is in play.

Let's keep the record straight at least.

 

[daqq]

:nono: It started with you butting in:
My response to what is antiscriptural was appropriate.

Then here again:
Let's keep the record straight at least.

It is an open forum and this is the THEOLOGY board. It is not "butting in" just because you have no answers and need to resort to name calling, arrogance, and pounding your chest proclaiming your superior IQ. And besides that you suppose that was my first time posting in this thread? Go back and recheck all 185 pages because you are incorrect yet again. And again why can you not deal with the topic? Nothing you have said has anything to do with the topic.

 

[Lon]

It is an open forum and this is the THEOLOGY board. It is not "butting in" just because you have no answers and need to resort to name calling, arrogance, and pounding your chest proclaiming your superior IQ.

Again, that was your entrance into thread. You asserted superiority. If I was at all pulled in, congratulations but I think I was careful against ad hominem. Attacks as they relate to thread? Yes. You? :nono: "Calvinism" blah blah blah "Education" blah blah blah.
But I ramble... Back to the thread...

And besides that you suppose that was my first time posting in this thread? Go back and recheck all 185 pages because you are incorrect yet again. And again why can you not deal with the topic? Nothing you have said has anything to do with the topic.

Back on topic:
1) Jesus is given undeniably as God in scripture John 1:1,3,14;20:28
2) It doesn't matter what anybody else says, scripture is clear. Anyone that can actually read it for comprehension won't/cannot disagree.
3) Those not able to discern MUST study harder/rely on elders-betters (I have elders-betters too, and know why they have that respectful position).
Titus 3:1-3

 

[Zeke]

Yet flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom 1Cor 15:50 so the best of the best Matt 11:11 didn't fare very good in the spiritual kingdom department which shows the historic carnal version is just like John who was great according to the heights of the flesh John 3:6 yet didn't fare that good in the spiritual one. Luke 17:20-21 is the Achilles heel of the the historical dogma charade that rules this kingdoms mentality and patronizes this worlds kingdoms govern mentalist and theology, yet once you pass through the veil the truth exposes the carnal spirit behind it all.

 

[Lon]

Yet flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom 1Cor 15:50 so the best of the best Matt 11:11 didn't fare very good in the spiritual kingdom department which shows the historic carnal version is just like John who was great according to the heights of the flesh John 3:6 yet didn't fare that good in the spiritual one. Luke 17:20-21 is the Achilles heel of the the historical dogma charade that rules this kingdoms mentality and patronizes this worlds kingdoms govern mentalist and theology, yet once you pass through the veil the truth exposes the carnal spirit behind it all.

There is no veil like you are thinking. It is rather a man without the spirit trying to discern the things of the Spirit. I imagine it goes both ways but a denial of Jesus Christ leaves one in a place where nothing is any longer sound, or true. True at that point is relative and simplty an 'ah ha' Jonathan Livingston Seagull moment. I left all that behind as pointless and lost because it left me ' to my own devises.' You keep it. I've rejected it as being the work of a great deceiver. "Be yourself" is terrible Eastern Mysticism advice. I'm of those who are dead to sin. I can't go back. There is nothing to be accomplished in this thread. Try here instead (thread I started for you instead of derailing this one).

 

[daqq]

1) Jesus is given undeniably as God in scripture John 1:1,3,14;20:28
2) It doesn't matter what anybody else says, scripture is clear. Anyone that can actually read it for comprehension won't/cannot disagree.
3) Those not able to discern MUST study harder/rely on elders-betters (I have elders-betters too, and know why they have that respectful position).
Titus 3:1-3

It is not even possible for you to prove that John 1:1 speaks of the man Yeshua and, in fact, he clearly states that he is neither the Logos nor the Judge in the very same Gospel account. However your "elders-betters" and teachers will not be able to help you with these things because they are no doubt the ones who lied to you. Nice to be back on topic.

 

[Lon]

It is not even possible for you to prove that John 1:1 speaks of the man Yeshua and, in fact, he clearly states that he is neither the Logos nor the Judge in the very same Gospel account. However your "elders-betters" and teachers will not be able to help you with these things because they are no doubt the ones who lied to you. Nice to be back on topic.

"was with and was [AM] God..." Trinity proved/thread.

 

[daqq]

"was with and was [AM] God..." Trinity proved/thread.

:doh: :nono:

Nowhere does the passage say that it speaks of the man Yeshua.
In fact the passage states that "No one has seen God at any time", (John 1:18).
Trinity refuted.

 

[meshak]

:

Remember too, I am not the one attacking unit-arians on their website.

My mission here to spread the whole truth of Christianity and Jesus' word.

Why are you so defensive about us who are interested in spreading the whole truth. Why do you take it as attack?

You seem to be dismissing the whole messages what I have been doing here.

Your care about your doctrines; not trying to be faithful to His teachings and commands, it seems.

I am paying to spread Jesus' word.

You need to devote to Jesus, not your doctrines or Calvinism.

Jesus is the Lord, dear.

 

[Lon]

:doh: :nono:

Nowhere does the passage say that it speaks of the man Yeshua.
In fact the passage states that "No one has seen God at any time", (John 1:18).
Trinity refuted.

Frankly, no. No possibility. Closing the book: John 20:28 Thomas exclaimed to Jesus <---> [You are] the Lord of me and God of me.

There is no way anybody can ever (never) convince me otherwise. Jesus is God. There is only one God. That leaves only modalism or Trinitarian as the only viable beliefs. Jews are Modal. Pentecostals are modal. I am triune because the scriptures demand it. Believe as you will under Divine consequences. No one who denies the Son has the Father.

 

[Rosenritter]

"was with and was [AM] God..." Trinity proved/thread.

That doesn't prove Trinity Lon...

 

[daqq]

Frankly, no. No possibility. Closing the book: John 20:28 Thomas exclaimed to Jesus <---> [You are] the Lord of me and God of me.

There is no way anybody can ever (never) convince me otherwise. Jesus is God. There is only one God. That leaves only modalism or Trinitarian as the only viable beliefs. Jews are Modal. Pentecostals are modal. I am triune because the scriptures demand it. Believe as you will under Divine consequences. No one who denies the Son has the Father.

Who ever said I was trying to convince you of anything? It is an open forum for theology discussion and I therefore have the privilege extended to me from the owners of the board to prove you wrong whether you agree or not. I already know that nothing is going to change your mind but that does not mean your delusion is exempt or immune to refutation. And why does the topic suddenly switch once again back to *you* verses the rest of the world? I already know you fancy yourself triune and, by the way, I'm not modal. But those things, again, have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You apparently are not capable of defending your position. I think that is great because it shows you are deceived.

 

[Rosenritter]

:doh: :nono:

Nowhere does the passage say that it speaks of the man Yeshua.
In fact the passage states that "No one has seen God at any time", (John 1:18).
Trinity refuted.

Moses saw God, Abraham served God bread, Jacob says he say God and lived. So if you have a strict inflexible definition for "saw" you have biblical contradiction. Perhaps "seen" has a broader larger meaning as used by John, rather than "witnessed physical manifestation."

 

[Lon]

That doesn't prove Trinity Lon...

Adamantly disagree.

 

[Lon]

Who ever said I was trying to convince you of anything? It is an open forum for theology discussion and I therefore have the privilege extended to me from the owners of the board to prove you wrong whether you agree or not. I already know that nothing is going to change your mind but that does not mean your delusion is exempt or immune to refutation.

It plainly and clearly is.

And why does the topic suddenly switch once again back to *you* verses the rest of the world? I already know you fancy yourself triune and, by the way, I'm not modal. But those things, again, have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You apparently are not capable of defending your position. I think that is great because it shows you are deceived.

Is that what is shows? A few dots missing... The thread is done. Talk as much as you like atf.

 

[Zeke]

There is no veil like you are thinking. It is rather a man without the spirit trying to discern the things of the Spirit. I imagine it goes both ways but a denial of Jesus Christ leaves one in a place where nothing is any longer sound, or true. True at that point is relative and simplty an 'ah ha' Jonathan Livingston Seagull moment. I left all that behind as pointless and lost because it left me ' to my own devises.' You keep it. I've rejected it as being the work of a great deceiver. "Be yourself" is terrible Eastern Mysticism advice. I'm of those who are dead to sin. I can't go back. There is nothing to be accomplished in this thread. Try here instead (thread I started for you instead of derailing this one).

The birth of the carnal Christ was a invention of Rome and stole most of their doctrine from others/pagans/Egypt etc....And does weigh on the trinity being a viable teaching, plus the teaching of Spirit that Jesus represented (Matt 11:11) I don't deny only the historic human sacrifice that has no factual bases except hear say and assumption.
You have no discernment ability outside the box and if you did you would grasp the two father/mother/sibling allegorical tale in Galatians 4:20-28 which explains it in a nut shell what these motifs represent so cockle doodle do all you want but you're blinded by that theological pride virus that controls you're mind loyal to this world cause/system and is a generic spirit you try and pin on me.

 

[Rosenritter]

Adamantly disagree.

You yourself said that Modalism and Trinity were both viable options. I do not consider myself precisely Trinitarian or Modalist and I accept the gospel of John. But regardless of me, surely you do not adamantly disagree with yourself?

 

[Rosenritter]

The birth of the carnal Christ was a invention of Rome and stole most of their doctrine from others/pagans/Egypt etc....And does weigh on the trinity being a viable teaching, plus the teaching of Spirit that Jesus represented (Matt 11:11) I don't deny only the historic human sacrifice that has no factual bases except hear say and assumption.
You have no discernment ability outside the box and if you did you would grasp the two father/mother/sibling allegorical tale in Galatians 4:20-28 which explains it in a nut shell what these motifs represent so cockle doodle do all you want but you're blinded by that theological pride virus that controls you're mind loyal to this world cause/system and is a generic spirit you try and pin on me.

Was Abraham about carnal paganism when God asked him to sacrifice his only heir and promised begotten son?

 

[Rosenritter]

It is not even possible for you to prove that John 1:1 speaks of the man Yeshua and, in fact, he clearly states that he is neither the Logos nor the Judge in the very same Gospel account. However your "elders-betters" and teachers will not be able to help you with these things because they are no doubt the ones who lied to you. Nice to be back on topic.

Daqq, sorry, that's just dumb. John is clearly speaking of Jesus and its obvious to anyone reading chapter 1. Say you don't accept John if you like.