Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spammers wasteland

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

  • Trinity has been refuted many times

    Trinity of gods is not the God of Jesus

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Makhoen View Post
      Trinity of gods is not the God of Jesus
      The God of Jesus was HaShem, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the One Who is of an absolute Oneness. (Isaiah 46:5)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Krsto View Post
        Jesus and his apostles were strict monotheists who never entertained the idea of God being ontologically 3 anything. When they became Christians they became Christian Monotheists. This is what the church was before it was trinitarian. If not this, then what? What was the church before it was trinitarian if it wasn't Christian Monotheist (aka Unitarian)?
        Jesus and his apostles never became Christians. There was never a time of Christian Monotheists. The Church was risen already trinitarian. Paul was always Trinitarian,
        from the day he founded Christianity. (Acts 11:26) Don't forget that he himself fabricated the idea, not only of the Trinity as well as for the resurrection of Jesus; including that he had been the individual Messiah. (II Tim. 2:8)

        Comment


        • I like the fact PPS that you actually engage in the subject matter. So few on any side of a debate are willing to do that.

          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Incorrect. Though it was understandably delayed by extreme persecution, the very earliest apologists began distinguishing the subtleties of Greek word meanings to apply to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one divinity in some manner.
          This did not happen until the latter half of the 2nd century, and it was not in an attempt to define orthodoxy, but as part of the church's struggle with different ways of thinking. Those who wrote about these issues wrote to offer a way to understand things, sometimes in contradistinction to others who did the same. The early apologists were just as much innovators as they were defenders.

          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Councils were to omit clearly heretical schismatic beliefs that were a threat to truth, unlike modern systematic theology, etc.
          No, the councils were to bring unity to the body at the demand of a Roman emperor who could not tolerate any form of disunity in "his" kingdom. He was the one who decided which doctrine was the "approved" doctrine and his position flip flopped according to who happened to be in front of him. Constantine caused more schisms than there were before the councils by enforcing his position on the church. He damned near caused a civil war. To say their reason for being was to "omit clearly heretical" beliefs finds no basis in history.

          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          And I never indicated that understanding thosa word meanings was the threshhold for salvific faith. But to deny the authentic eternal and uncreated divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is beyond that threshhold.
          And yet the church didn't start out believing Jesus was eternal and uncreated. That came later.

          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Salvation is a being/becoming comparable to copula/gerund in linguistics. We are "saved" when we receive the end of our faith.
          We are also saved when we are delivered from the bondage of sin, i.e., when we stop sinning. Salvation is a process as much as it is a goal.

          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          If you're appealing to first century theology as orthodox, then you are in even greater peril. Polycarp and others clearly affirmed the ontological divinity of our Lord. Just because apologetics lagged behind that for clear expression, it doesn't change the core beliefs that you are trying to dismiss.
          Polycarp did not affirm that Jesus was "fully God." He affirmed him as theos, if memory serves (it doesn't always). Theos applies to men as well as to God. Polycarp was a Unitarian.

          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          The Apostles weren't Unitarians or Arians or Sabellians.
          Then what were they?
          Atheism is a advertising nightmare as in what you see is what you get and when you die that's it. - DaveDodo007

          Totally depraved doctrine.
          Uncertain salvation.
          Luck of the draw.
          Irresistible damnation.
          Persecution of the saints.

          Courtesy of Desert Reign

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
            "God, His Word, and His Wisdom" was among the earliest cry of Patristic hearts according to Apostolic teaching. Divinity all around is the theme. And it was near unanimous.
            That was 170 AD, and it was only one person, Theophilus of Antioch. This was a novel idea not shared by anyone else, and he wasn't describing God ontologically, he was just saying that there is a trinity of Father, Word, Wisdom. I could say the same thing, or come up with a host of other trinities without saying "God is a triune being". Your contention that Theophilus expressed the near unanimous opinion of the church finds not basis in history.

            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
            You know I despise the English term "Person/s" and Multi-Hypostaticism. So I'm obviously not lobbying for any Nicean form. Yet there was a general consensus of ontological divinity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
            There wasn't a general consensus on much of anything in the early church, and the farther away from the source, the more innovation became popular thinking among theologians and the more ideas floated around Christendom. To say the whole church believed what the theologians said would be like saying Voltaire represented what the French believed. That only came after the thinker's thinking became popular, which took a couple hundred years. In the case of early theologians, if they were lucky, some later ecclesiastical body would approve. Some of the ideas that became popular among trinitarians such as "eternally proceeding from the Father" came from people who were otherwise considered rank heretics and didn't even believe the same things about it but their terms were just borrowed and molded it into something useful for their purposes, which included trying to rationalize what's inherently contradictory.
            Atheism is a advertising nightmare as in what you see is what you get and when you die that's it. - DaveDodo007

            Totally depraved doctrine.
            Uncertain salvation.
            Luck of the draw.
            Irresistible damnation.
            Persecution of the saints.

            Courtesy of Desert Reign

            Comment


            • There is no evidence from history to suggest the church prior to 150 AD was trinitarian.
              Atheism is a advertising nightmare as in what you see is what you get and when you die that's it. - DaveDodo007

              Totally depraved doctrine.
              Uncertain salvation.
              Luck of the draw.
              Irresistible damnation.
              Persecution of the saints.

              Courtesy of Desert Reign

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jamie Gigliotti View Post
                Personal worship can be done in private or en masse. In the group, powerful Spiritual unifying presence becomes a possibility.
                The art can facilitate the expression of the heart and soul which is worship. Without the heart and soul expression of love, praise, thankfulness and humility art is just that art.
                That isn't really art.

                I agree that combining our voices in song can certainly be a moving spiritual experience. But that, in itself, doesn't make the practice, "art".

                Look, I'm not against the use of human expression in the service of such spiritual experiences. Not at all! I'm just pointing out that art is not religion. Or science. Or philosophy. Or politics. Or commerce. And when people try to use art to promote or engage in these other human endeavors, it usually results in lousy art, and doesn't serve the other endeavor, much, either.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                  Thomas Kincaid will be remembered this century, for example and again. You don't realize how many incredible musicians are Christian and write songs about their faith, apparently.
                  Kincaid is a poser and a con artist. His images are grotesquely nostalgic kitsch and nothing more. And that's exactly how he will be remembered to the degree that he will be remembered at all.

                  Also, being a musician and a songwriter does not make one an artist, regardless of how "talented" they are. Nor does being a Christian preclude anyone from doing great art, musically or otherwise. All I'm saying is that the art can't serve two masters any more than we can. People who want to proselytize or politicize through art will almost always make lousy art because that's not what art is for. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

                  Comment


                  • I think of this as a very spiritual song, even though it's not at all explicit about it. And I am certain that when Springsteen wrote it, he intended it to carry a deeply spiritual message.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PureX View Post
                      That isn't really art.
                      Oddly, you've no idea what art is. Art is simply an expression of beauty what is valued in the soul: Thus a parent's crayon picture from a child is a cherished thing and the highest form of art, and you are yet again trolling a thread for your inane agendas.

                      I agree that combining our voices in song can certainly be a moving spiritual experience. But that, in itself, doesn't make the practice, "art".
                      No. You don't. To date, you post your secular attempts as if they are gold ALSO trolling this thread and ruining it.

                      Look, I'm not against the use of human expression in the service of such spiritual experiences. Not at all!
                      Not after reading these verses you mean:
                      Originally posted by Lon View Post
                      Yep Ephesians 5:19 Colossians 3:16 Anybody who says otherwise is trolling life...and this thread.
                      Hypocrite or change of heart? Your scripture knowledge equivalent would fit on the head of a pin

                      Originally posted by PureX View Post
                      Kincaid is a poser and a con artist. His images are grotesquely nostalgic kitsch and nothing more. And that's exactly how he will be remembered to the degree that he will be remembered at all.
                      Jealous much? You are inane. He is the most well-known artist of this century. It doesn't matter what art critics like you think. Nobody is listening. Again, you are trolling this thread. Stop it or I will report it.
                      Originally posted by PureX View Post
                      Also, being a musician and a songwriter does not make one an artist, regardless of how "talented" they are.
                      Incorrect.

                      Originally posted by PureX View Post
                      Nor does being a Christian preclude anyone from doing great art, musically or otherwise.
                      2 Corinthians 5:9-10 Only what is wrought for God will make it through the fire. What you know of scriptures would fit into a demitasse without spilling over.
                      Originally posted by PureX View Post
                      All I'm saying is that the art can't serve two masters any more than we can.
                      Who do you serve? Where is the focus of ALL of your posts? Surely it is against the whole purpose of this thread and you are found trolling it and ruining it.
                      Originally posted by PureX View Post
                      People who want to proselytize or politicize through art will almost always make lousy art because that's not what art is for. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
                      You haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Remember anti-war protest songs?
                      Art is art when anybody values it. Rather, our expression 'that ain't art' is about our own values against an expression.

                      Eternal art is what this thread is interested in and you need to stop trolling it against its intended purpose.

                      Stop trolling before I report you.
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • Here's another great favorite of mine. Patty Griffin is an amazing artist that wrote this song about her grandmother, Mary, but beautifully couples it with the spirit of caregiving: of the Earth, of motherhood, and of God in general.

                        It's an older song, now, but still an amazing example of contemporary spiritual music.

                        Comment


                        • You just never know when or where an actual conversation is going to break out around this joint.

                          Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Krsto View Post
                            There is no evidence from history to suggest the church prior to 150 AD was trinitarian.
                            In the strictest sense, agreed. And there is no evidence from history to suggest the church prior to 150 AD was unitarian... or arian... or sabellian... or anything else cohesive in an actual formulaic beyond general perceptions.

                            There IS evidence that the earliest Patristics affirmed the divinity of Christ (and more than in a titular sense only), and with consideration for the Holy Spirit.

                            And the New Testament lexicography is much clearer than detractors can admit regarding the true divinity of the Son. A divine God as Father would not have a Logos that wasn't eternal and uncreated and divine as He is AS Spirit (also eternal and uncreated and divine).

                            My formulaic reconciles ALL the emergent historical views. All omitted the same thing, and were compensating for that one omission.
                            Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                            “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by fzappa13 View Post
                              You just never know when or where an actual conversation is going to break out around this joint.

                              Much better than all the drive-bys from the Dispensationalists and others, yes? Actual subject matter.
                              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                Much better than all the drive-bys from the Dispensationalists and others, yes? Actual subject matter.
                                What, nouns and verbs ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X