Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider,I can appreciate your fixation with the Trinitarian understanding of this.

Idiotic insults are unnecessary.

I understand that the Word is a personification of God's wisdom and purpose, and this became a reality when Jesus was born and developed into the full moral character of God, full of grace and truth.

That's because you blatantly ignore the fact that that scripture says that the WORD WAS GOD.... not the "personification of God's wisdom and purpose". You are what can simply be called "a scripture twister" .... someone that perverts the "word of God" to try to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Trinitarians do not believe that the Word was made flesh, as they believe that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was combined with flesh, and became a God-man, not flesh alone. Thus they do not believe that the Word was made flesh, but that flesh was added to His Deity.

Attacking FALSE definitions of the triune nature of God is you anti-trinitarians claim to fame.

 

[glorydaz]

Greetings again Right Divider,I can appreciate your fixation with the Trinitarian understanding of this. I understand that the Word is a personification of God's wisdom and purpose, and this became a reality when Jesus was born and developed into the full moral character of God, full of grace and truth. Trinitarians do not believe that the Word was made flesh, as they believe that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was combined with flesh, and became a God-man, not flesh alone. Thus they do not believe that the Word was made flesh, but that flesh was added to His Deity.

Kind regards
Trevor

I can appreciate that you don't understand the nature of God.

Many people fail to do so. But when you accuse others of not seeing, when you so obviously don't see, that becomes a sorry state of affairs for you. :sigh:

 

[Apple7]

Greetings PneumaPsucheSoma, I have summarised your extensive article by quoting the first two and the last four paragraphs. Could yo please explain Luke 1:34-35 and Luke 2:40,52.

Kind regards
Trevor

Simple.

'Wisdom' and 'Grace' are epithets for the Third Person of The Trinity.

Study up...

:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

God does speak individually Psalm 110:1,... Kind regards
Trevor

Scores of times in scripture, the dialogue of God alternates from First-Person to Third-Person...thus, the only logical conclusion that one can arrive at is that Yahweh is more than one Person.

Psalm 110

A declaration of Yahweh to my Master: Sit at My right hand, until I place (First-Person),Your enemies as Your footstool. Yahweh shall send (Third-Person) the rod of Your strength out of Zion to rule in the midst of Your enemies. Your people shall have willingness in the day of Your might; in the majesties of holiness; from the womb of the dawn, to You is the dew of Your youth. Yahweh has sworn and will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. The Master at Your right hand shatters kings in the day of His anger. He shall judge among the nations; He shall fill with dead bodies; He shall shatter heads over much land. He shall drink out of the torrent on the way; therefore, He shall lift up the head. (Psalm 110.1 - 7)


:cigar:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

As usual, spot on!

The only reason that I deal with the 'thick as a brick' Trinity deniers on this forum, is to let them debase themselves in front of others, and show their obtuse reasoning for the benefit of the masses.

Trinity deniers suffer from '2 Cor 4 syndrome' and, are literally the walking dead.

So be it...as it was intended to be, and cannot be changed....


Don't lose heart, and embrace that you have been made part of the adventure in exposing the deniers for the utter depravity that they most assuredly have been blinded with...

Keep standing for the faith once delivered to the saints!!

 

[Apple7]

No, an Angel spoke to Ezekiel. Kind regards
Trevor

Incorrect.

NO angel spoke to Ezekiel.

Get your sentence structure correct, Trev.

Those pathetic instructors of yours, that you practically bow down and worship, know absolutely nothing regarding scripture.

File 13 those losers...

 

[Apple7]

John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Greek text according to the most recent NA28 edition…

θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote monogenēs Theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato

No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.


:cigar:

 

[Apple7]

trev...you got nottin son...

 

[Apple7]

Please don't break a sweat in your replies, Trev...

Please don't break a sweat in your replies, Trev...

An Angel Exodus 3:2.

Stephen stated that the Malek in the burning bush, WHO SPOKE TO MOSES, was both Lord and God (Act 7.30 – 33, 35, 38).

 

[Apple7]

trev...can we say total ownership?

 

[Apple7]

Confess The Triune God...

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7, Right Divider and glorydaz,

It's so simple a caveman could comprehend it.

Out of the numerous posts from Apple7 I have quoted one line from one of them to acknowledge that I have read them all but see no value in discussing them.

Attacking FALSE definitions of the triune nature of God is you anti-trinitarians claim to fame.

I can appreciate that you don't understand the nature of God.
Many people fail to do so. But when you accuse others of not seeing, when you so obviously don't see, that becomes a sorry state of affairs for you. :sigh:

I have not encountered a consistent definition of the Trinity and I certainly cannot comprehend the various ones that I have heard. I certainly do not accept the Athanasian Creed.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings PneumaPsucheSoma, I have summarised your extensive article by quoting the first two and the last four paragraphs. Could yo please explain Luke 1:34-35 and Luke 2:40,52.

Kind regards
Trevor

Okay. I will consider answering your questions regarding the Luke 1&2 passages, but there are two issues already.

First, you haven’t actually responded to my post content. Instead, you think it’s a matter of having to deal with selected scriptures that you presume were somehow missed for nearly two millennia in dealing with Theology Proper.

Second, I could spend an hour explicating the above passages (particularly Luke 2, which you likely think is problematic for Trinitarianism because you’re not a linguist), but the likely outcome would be you simply declining direct biblical evidence to maintain your fallacious and heretical anti-Christian position of Unitarianism.

I’ve seen no relenting from you when clear and concise answers are given that jeopardize your preconceived ideas of the Trinity versus Unitarianism.

So... tell me why I should bother. Why would an exegesis of a few verses in two chapters of Luke make any difference to you? You’ve ignored every other representation that has been cited or otherwise given to you, presumably for years and in your every day life from all who would address the topic.

The answers to your question would provide the truth about how the humanity of the Lord could be authentically human and grow up as such, while still remaining unmixed and inseparable divinity. It’s all in the lexicography, not plainly stated as so many insist, just as it always is.

The problem is that you’re here merely advocating an ideology, not attempting to ascertain if the Trinity, because you don’t understand it, is a valid doctrine or not. You’re not here to learn, you’re here to debate and contend for your position.

So tell me... Why should I waste time answering if you will scoff at the answer as you have already pre-planned to do?

If you don’t already understand morphe (inward form) and schema (outward form) from Philippians, then why would you think you would understand my simple lexical answers to Luke 1&2 that absolutely demonstrate Messiah’s humanity being able to progress in natural human development while ALSO remaining divinity by inward form (morphe)?

Methinks you just want to wear out a path around the tetherball pole while you rope the ball.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I have not encountered a consistent definition of the Trinity and I certainly cannot comprehend the various ones that I have heard. I certainly do not accept the Athanasian Creed.

Kind regards
Trevor

And herein lies the problem. You have not expended the basic stewardship effort to go beyond whatever limitations of explanation others have given for the Trinity doctrine, and your own comprehension of all you’ve heard.

As a linguist and semioticist, I’ve spent over 20 years examining the historical writings in comparison to the biblical text. I’ve read EVERY Patristic writing extant that is available in translation into English; and I’ve done so according the principles of lingistics and other necessary disciplines.

You’re actually without excuse, because the consistent comprehensive and comprehendable defintion of the Trinity is exhaustively replete throughout the early history of such writings in correspondence with the text of scripture. It’s not an obscure subject at all. There are volumes and volumes of consistent definitions of the Trinity doctrine.

That you use individuals on a forum or in real life to excuse yourself from understanding the Trinity is very telling. It’s actually diagnosable via forensic psychology in ministerial form. You simply reject it by your subjective opinions and don’t want to know what it is or means; and you wouldn’t be corrected by all the demanded “evidence” anyone could ever provide. You’ve decided for yourself against Christian doctrine that you and others know better. And that’s ridiculous since you’re not a linguist or historian.

The bottom line is... You will continue using the authentic humanity of the Lord to deny the authentic divinity of the Lord by reading that false understanding into and out of the inspired text. And you will do so based upon your own subjective opinions being in absolute conflict with EVERY one of the Early Fathers who have given consistent definitions of the Trinity doctrine.

And you will likely decry the Trinity based upon Roman corruption, when the East was far more influential in determining the foundations of the Trinity doctrine and its expression.

If you ever decide to be an actual student to learn, instead of presuming to already know something, then some of us here could and would expend the time and energy necessary to help you comprehend a consistent defintion of the Trinity, including teaching you what Greek grammar and semantics mean lexically.

Unless and until you’re at that place, all you’re going to do is mock and scoff in your passive-aggressive manner of feigning a need to be informed with loaded questions you think can’t be answered, like your Luke 1&2 references.

Tell me... Do you think God so impotent, that His own eternal and uncreated Logos could not be the Son and be divinity while being humanity authentically enfleshed? Is your view of God really so limited? But your view of your own understanding is exalted.

Why not try being honest with yourself. You’re not here to ask valid questions. You’re here to contend for Unitarianism against something you admit you don’t even comprehend.

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Apple7, Right Divider and glorydaz, Out of the numerous posts from Apple7 I have quoted one line from one of them to acknowledge that I have read them all but see no value in discussing them.
I have not encountered a consistent definition of the Trinity and I certainly cannot comprehend the various ones that I have heard. I certainly do not accept the Athanasian Creed.

Kind regards
Trevor

The triune nature of God is apparent throughout the Bible. That you cannot find a definition that satisfies you is your own personal problem.

I could care less about that you think of a creed.I don't need a creed to know what the Bible teaches.

Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 1:14).

 

[Dartman]

Incorrect.

The passage you quoted is crystal clear to any serious student of scripture.

I doubt that you have many trinitarians even that agree with your willingness to replace Scripture with your own words.

 

[Dartman]

Hmmm, let's see:



Colossians 1:15-20? No, we cannot pit scripture against scripture and MUST reconcile ALL scriptures therefore I am necessarily (by scripture's demands) triune (Trinitarian).

But you have just pitted Col 1, against Isa 42, Acts 4 and Acts 17.

The way to HARMONIZE ALL texts is right there in Col 1. Paul is NOT writing about the creation of the universe, Paul is discussing powers, authorities, principalities and dominions that CURRENTLY (are) existed at his writing of the epistle.
Jesus created the civilization in which Paul and we live. Jesus' God created the universe.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Matthew 5:37; John 1:1, 14

Now, are you going to reply to the rest of my post?

Bump for [MENTION=20936]Dartman[/MENTION]

 

[Apple7]

, Out of the numerous posts from Apple7 I have quoted one line from one of them to acknowledge that I have read them all but see no value in discussing them.

Why bother to even make a reply stating that you would not make a reply?

 

[Apple7]

I doubt that you have many trinitarians even that agree with your willingness to replace Scripture with your own words.

Said no one, ever.