Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another tally of anti-trinitarian threads

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

  • Truth-
    replied
    Originally posted by BoyStan View Post
    I recognise the anti trinitarian worship at my church's worship every Sunday. The whole emphasis is on Jesus. Jesus is spoken of like he is God and their is no Spirit or Father, but Jesus is everything. This attitude is contrary to Jesus own statements in the gospels. The worship of Jesus only, ignoring the trinity is idolatry!
    That's the whole reason for the Trinity doctrine, it is to have everyone worshipping Jesus(true name is Yehowshuwa) instead of the Father Yehowah.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Seems to be a resurgence of these lately.
    Last edited by Lon; February 21st, 2017, 03:40 PM. Reason: accidentally hit 'quote' :doh:

    Leave a comment:


  • lazaros
    replied
    If you want scriptural warrant(s) for the doctrine of the Trinity, start at the beginning - Genesis 1.1-2.4a, the locus classics of trinitarian theology.This is not the 'last' time the doctrine is delivered,but you should begin here, that is, if you want to learn something:

    http://markanmandala.info/mm1.html

    If you are serious about theology, the you can download Hebrew and Greek fonts from the link listed on the following page:

    http://markanmandala.info

    Leave a comment:


  • BoyStan
    replied
    Thanks, Lon
    Okay my comment was in the wrong thread. I was not seeking to debate the Trinity. I am fully 100% convinced of the Trinity. The Trinity is not just a doctrine for academic textbooks or theology students. The Trinity is what I practice everyday. This is especially so in prayer to the Father in Jesus name through the Holy Spirit. My observation of the complete focus on Jesus at church, especially in worship, is out of focus with the New Testament witness. Let the church practice the same Trinitarian balance shown in the New Testament.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by BoyStan View Post
    I recognise the anti trinitarian worship at my church's worship every Sunday. The whole emphasis is on Jesus. Jesus is spoken of like he is God and their is no Spirit or Father, but Jesus is everything. This attitude is contrary to Jesus own statements in the gospels. The worship of Jesus only, ignoring the trinity is idolatry!
    Well, this isn't the thread to debate it, but no, I disagree with you. "I and the Father are one." There is no honoring the Son without honoring the Father or Spirit. Most often, the mistake I see is that one doesn't rightly understand that God is One, Father, Spirit, and Son is/are God. It is given as a mystery, but the 'equatedness' is clear, Suggestion: Spend a little time reading the Creeds, their scriptures given, and why the documents were crafted the way they were. You don't have to agree with the Creeds unless they are wholly Biblical, and I believe they are. Further discussion might be taken to one of the threads linked on the first page. This specific thread simply tracks these threads and if they get overtly top-heavy on TOL, we can eliminate the redundant ones leaving one or two in the wake that carry the intent (we haven't had to, because a new one is started almost every other day here on TOL by Arians/Unitarians). This thread is simply about the #'s and discussion about their specific existence on TOL rather than a rehashing of those exact same topics in yet another thread, as it were. Thanks -Lon

    Leave a comment:


  • BoyStan
    replied
    I recognise the anti trinitarian worship at my church's worship every Sunday. The whole emphasis is on Jesus. Jesus is spoken of like he is God and their is no Spirit or Father, but Jesus is everything. This attitude is contrary to Jesus own statements in the gospels. The worship of Jesus only, ignoring the trinity is idolatry!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kerry
    replied
    Asking where the words, "God the Son, hypostatic union, dual nature, and God man" is a strange question if the theology behind these terms can be shown to be derived from the bible. Such an imposed requirement of asking that specific words be shown to be in the bible, which those who hold to these never say are found in the bible but only the theology behind them, can be equated to saying, "well the word bible is not found in the bible so there must be no bible."

    Leave a comment:


  • fzappa13
    replied
    Originally posted by RevTestament View Post
    Your join date says 2009...

    If you have known this since 2003 though, I think you beat me to the punch. I didn't realize the precise connection until more recently.
    The House of "God" is literally the house of Elohim Jesus said He was preparing rooms for us in. I find it sad that Athanasian Christianity have blocked themselves off from such an inheritance. I am glad I have found an ally in this revelation.
    Me and a poster named Elohim had a lot of fun with the subject back in '05 I think (BTW, I was Mateo back then). That thread is long gone. It's kinda funny but it's not ... watching peoples' heads explode when confronted with scripture on the subject. This is inevitable when what you believe is from the mouth/pen hand of a man and not the word of God. A plain reading of the subject through scriptures quickly has doctrinaires foaming at the mouth. A pity so many know not what they seek.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ps82
    replied
    Originally posted by RevTestament View Post
    K cleared you two whole spaces
    just send your reply. Don't quote our prior correspondence. I believe I also have a link to my email somewhere...
    Okay
    Last edited by Ps82; August 13th, 2016, 01:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RevTestament
    replied
    Originally posted by Ps82 View Post
    Hello RevTestament ... Long time away for both of us.
    I'm trying to contact you. I've tried to message you, but the site says that the volume on your message board is full and you must delete some content in order to receive others. You have asked me some questions about my dream.
    K cleared you two whole spaces
    just send your reply. Don't quote our prior correspondence. I believe I also have a link to my email somewhere...

    Leave a comment:


  • RevTestament
    replied
    Originally posted by fzappa13 View Post
    I go back to 2003 at this joint so you might want to reconsider who is emulating who as it concerns the term "Elohim".
    Your join date says 2009...
    That said I am happy for the company. So few understand exactly what Jesus promised ... and Paul ... and Peter ...


    To be a member of the family of God is no small thing and yet so few understand what it is they aspire to nor what they were promised.

    Ah well, t'was ever thus ..."eye hath not seen nor ear heard", etc.
    If you have known this since 2003 though, I think you beat me to the punch. I didn't realize the precise connection until more recently.
    The House of "God" is literally the house of Elohim Jesus said He was preparing rooms for us in. I find it sad that Athanasian Christianity have blocked themselves off from such an inheritance. I am glad I have found an ally in this revelation.

    Leave a comment:


  • fzappa13
    replied
    Originally posted by RevTestament View Post
    Fzappa must have picked this up from me - he's the only other person I have seen call the house of God Elohim - very astute of him :-)
    BTW PPS how u doin? I wonder if you could expound on your comments about the scriptures of the eastern church vs. the Latin Church. Could u give specific examples?
    I go back to 2003 at this joint so you might want to reconsider who is emulating who as it concerns the term "Elohim". That said I am happy for the company. So few understand exactly what Jesus promised ... and Paul ... and Peter ...


    To be a member of the family of God is no small thing and yet so few understand what it is they aspire to nor what they were promised.

    Ah well, t'was ever thus ..."eye hath not seen nor ear heard", etc.
    Last edited by fzappa13; August 7th, 2016, 07:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ps82
    replied
    Hello RevTestament ... Long time away for both of us.
    I'm trying to contact you. I've tried to message you, but the site says that the volume on your message board is full and you must delete some content in order to receive others. You have asked me some questions about my dream.

    Leave a comment:


  • RevTestament
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Yay.



    Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.



    That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

    St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.


    Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.
    Fzappa must have picked this up from me - he's the only other person I have seen call the house of God Elohim - very astute of him :-)
    BTW PPS how u doin? I wonder if you could expound on your comments about the scriptures of the eastern church vs. the Latin Church. Could u give specific examples?

    Leave a comment:


  • fzappa13
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.

    That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

    St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.
    Yeah, I kinda felt this might be at the root of your efforts and that maybe it was your way of trying to reconcile the estranged Eastern and Western Churches, doctrinally speaking, as it concerned the notion of The Trinity. But even such a noble effort must take into account the influence both the cultures and the languages had on later Christian thought. That's why I keep circling back to the Hebrew. That's where it all went down. Though, as it concerns fleshing out the particulars of the Doctrine of the Trinity you're likely in the right neighborhood.



    No, it's the inverse. I've long divested the bias most are plagued with; and I've never been one to avoid criticizing the status quo to which you refer.

    Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.


    Here again you point to a miniscule minority of the usage of the term to point to it's meaning. Why not gather the totality of the instances it occurs in the Bible and let their collective wisdom speak of what the word means? I know the ramifications might well be unsettling to a few previously held notions but … who cares? We're after the truth, right?



    His Body, according to His authentic humanity. The prosopon of His divinity had no body as corporeality. And "greater" means elder; not quantitatively "more", but qualitatively more according to God's goal for man as teleios ("perfect").

    Now you're off into a REALLY big subject (one of my favorites) but, again, you've wandered into the Hebrew if you have any hope of understanding the subject. Many of the Elohiym had bodies that could manifest and interact in both the heavenly and earthly realm. This phenomenon was memorialized in the particulars concerning the priestly robes in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel. It is also alluded to in Gen 6, the Mt. Of Transfiguration, etc. Remember Christ didn't want Mary to touch Him after He was first arisen … the woman with an issue of blood who did? A study of the terms “white robes” and “white raiment” will not be without fruit. This kind of complicates the modern notions of corporeality and that's OK … they could likely use a little dusting off anyway.


    How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence?

    I'm not. That's exousia (power). God's exousia is the source, not our innate existence. If it were our inherent "being", it would not need the source of delegation to us. Ousia is the species designation as kind. We will never be divine as a kind.

    Okay, then to put it in terms you are comfortable with. I am suggesting the term “Elohiym” is “Ousia” in its nature. It's a species of sorts.


    How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

    By being a new "who" in Christ as a new creation, not a new "what". There's quite an extensive delineation of minutiae for Anthropology Proper to understand all this as decently and in order. We're not re-created, but resurrected unto life in Christ.

    Man's human essence is not divinized. It's the hypostasis underlying the ousia that is translated into Christ. And that is NOW.



    … Through faith, NOW, right … I'm not referring to that. I referring to what comes after. The Resurrection(s). Remember, what we have NOW is the earnest ... a down payment. Then? Our full inheritance.
    Last edited by fzappa13; June 3rd, 2016, 04:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X