Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

[Apple7]

Jesus' God created the universe.

The Father's God is Jesus.

 

[Dartman]

Simple.

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

Study up...

wow ..... your "creative" eisegesis knows no bounds. You are not as bad as 7d7, but you've just earned "ignore".

 

[Dartman]

Bump for @Dartman

Not until we fully discuss your failure.

Matt 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Technically, Jesus says four words in this commandment.
And, I am pretty sure even you would agree this text is NOT commanding us to use one word communication EVERY TIME we speak.
The commandment begins in verse 33, and records Christ's prohibition against ANY swearing .... and he gives several examples of what NOT to do, and he then explains what we ARE supposed to do, Let our Yes mean Yes, and our No mean No..... there is to be the same level of commitment to truth in ANY communication (logos) we speak.
So, no this one doesn't work for you.

Your attempt to use John 1 is what we call "begging the question", let me know if you can't find that one on google.

So, you need to admit the OBVIOUS truth ...... there isn't a single example of logos singular being limited to one word...... and there are MANY that prove logos singular is used for words, sayings, etc.

 

[Dartman]

The problem with “proving” the uncreated divinity of our Lord is that it has never actually been authentically in question amongst those who adhere to Apostolic doctrine for nearly two millennia.

There is no problem with proving the trinity and oneness false, since there is VAST quantities of actual clear, simple and direct STATEMENTS of the truth that Jesus' God is the ONLY true God, and that Jesus and the Jews "KNOW what we worship". The Jews have NEVER .... EVER accepted trinity.

There are also MANY direct and explicit records of the GRADUAL development of the trinitarian theory .... beginning shortly after the death of John ... and not being fully fleshed out until late in the 4th century.

 

[Dartman]

I am sure some of you will cheer if this happens, but I wanted to share an example of censorship on this forum;

Dear Dartman,

You have received an infraction at Theology Online.

Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive
-------
​Trinity bashing in every thread. This is a Christian site. If you want to stay a member here, you need to knock off this kind of posting.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Here is what I had said;

The falling away was beginning as Paul was writing the epistle to the Thessalonians, and isn't going to be destroyed until Jesus returns. So, we are looking at a perfect match for the gradual development of the trinity, and "immortal soul" doctrine, which both contradict the Scriptures... and the world dominance exercised by the HRE... from about 500AD to 1760AD.

Consequently, I may not be here very long.

 

[Apple7]

wow ..... your "creative" eisegesis knows no bounds. You are not as bad as 7d7, but you've just earned "ignore".

Said no one, ever.

 

[glorydaz]

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

Ya gotta take your fingers out of your ears first. :chew:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

There is no problem with proving the trinity and oneness false, since there is VAST quantities of actual clear, simple and direct STATEMENTS of the truth that Jesus' God is the ONLY true God, and that Jesus and the Jews "KNOW what we worship". The Jews have NEVER .... EVER accepted trinity.

There are also MANY direct and explicit records of the GRADUAL development of the trinitarian theory .... beginning shortly after the death of John ... and not being fully fleshed out until late in the 4th century.

The Jews are now Rabbinic Pharisaic Talmudists, and they’re antichrist. The Synagogue of Satan.

And you’re no historian any more than you’re a linguist or exegete.

Fluster and bluster all you want, but one short passage from Philippians 1 destroys Unitarianism, even if someone fallaciously disregards history and Patristic writings (which are at odds with your false assertions).

Your kicking against the pricks is duly noted. You’re not even a decent Unitarian apologist.

There is no functionality for man’s salvation if Christ is not both divine and human. There’s literally no way for man to partake of the divine nature if Christ is not divinity. But you don’t and can’t know what that means.

There is little that is more despicable than a Unitarian pretending to be Christian. You have no savior.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am sure some of you will cheer if this happens, but I wanted to share an example of censorship on this forum;


Here is what I had said;

Consequently, I may not be here very long.

Well... You can take solace that you’ll one day be in the lake of fire for your stubborn blasphemy and faithlessness, I suppose. That’s not much solace.

This IS a Christian forum. Unitarianism is not Christian. Why would you be surprised?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

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

I have been busy on Saturday and Sunday, and I had spent some time on listing all of your numerous replies and trying to decide what to answer, but then a storm set in and I had to hasten to get offline. My connection is via copper some 400 metres via overhead power lines to the fibre node and I have lost two modems in previous storms. I will make a brief comment on some of your replies. You seemed to be in a jovial mood, possibly having smoked something more than some cigars, or drunk a few bottles. On the other hand I was in a sober mood as I had attended our annual regional public seminar afternoon where three speakers had spoken on firstly Jerusalem as the future capital, the throne of David when Christ returns, and then on Jesus and the need for our personal response. I was disappointed that none of the six persons that I had invited attended, as they had a different perspective on Jerusalem. I will briefly review Posts #317-332.

It's so simple a caveman could comprehend it.

#317: No, God has spoken through his prophets in OT times, and occasionally through the Angels.

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.
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...

#318: This did not help.

A7: 'Why do you deny your Triune Creator?' A7: 'Let's exorcise your demon!'

#319: This did not help.

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

#313: No, Jesus increased in wisdom.

Yahweh is more than one Person. Psalm 110

#324: Yahweh in Psalm 110:1 is God the Father.

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

#325: Pneuma’s response to your “the 'thick as a brick' Trinity deniers on this forum” comment. This did not help.

Incorrect. NO angel spoke to Ezekiel. Those pathetic instructors of yours, that you practically bow down and worship, know absolutely nothing regarding scripture.

#326: I maintain that it was an Angel, and continue to respect our senior expositors.

Greek text according to the most recent NA28 edition…
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.

#327: You did not comment on the alternative text “the only begotten Son”, upon which the KJV bases its translation. Of course you prefer the corrupt “Trinity text”.

trev...you got nottin son...

#328: This did not help.

Please don't break a sweat in your replies, Trev... Stephen stated that the Malek in the burning bush, WHO SPOKE TO MOSES, was both Lord and God (Act 7.30 – 33, 35, 38).

#329: God speaks through His Angels.

trev...can we say total ownership?

#331: This did not help.

Confess The Triune God... Say it!!!!! Say it!!!!! Say it!!!!!(abbreviated)

#332: This did not help. In total not much substance in any of your replies above and no new matter. I have yet to respond to the lengthy Posts by Pneuma.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again Apple7, I have been busy on Saturday and Sunday, and I had spent some time on listing all of your numerous replies and trying to decide what to answer, but then a storm set in and I had to hasten to get offline. My connection is via copper some 400 metres via overhead power lines to the fibre node and I have lost two modems in previous storms. I will make a brief comment on some of your replies. You seemed to be in a jovial mood, possibly having smoked something more than some cigars, or drunk a few bottles. On the other hand I was in a sober mood as I had attended our annual regional public seminar afternoon where three speakers had spoken on firstly Jerusalem as the future capital, the throne of David when Christ returns, and then on Jesus and the need for our personal response. I was disappointed that none of the six persons that I had invited attended, as they had a different perspective on Jerusalem. I will briefly review Posts #317-332.
#317: No, God has spoken through his prophets in OT times, and occasionally through the Angels.
#318: This did not help.
#319: This did not help.
#313: No, Jesus increased in wisdom.
#324: Yahweh in Psalm 110:1 is God the Father.
#325: Pneuma’s response to your “the 'thick as a brick' Trinity deniers on this forum” comment. This did not help.
#326: I maintain that it was an Angel, and continue to respect our senior expositors.
#327: You did not comment on the alternative text “the only begotten Son”, upon which the KJV bases its translation. Of course you prefer the corrupt “Trinity text”.
#328: This did not help.
#329: God speaks through His Angels.
#331: This did not help.
#332: This did not help. In total not much substance in any of your replies above and no new matter. I have yet to respond to the lengthy Posts by Pneuma.

Kind regards
Trevor

Have you thoroughly studied linguistics, and the biblical languages in particular? Do you understand Greek anarthrous nouns, noun cases, and the aortist verb tense? Have you read all the Patristics and compared their usages of linguistic terms and their lexical meanings and applications to have a thorough understanding of the consistent historical expression and representation of the Trinity doctrine?

No. You haven’t and won’t. And by your own words, you don’t understand any explanation of the Trinity doctrine. So you continue to spit into the wind, opposing the authentic historical and orthodox Christian faith’s Theology Proper.

You’re just another Modernist and Scholasticist, arguing from your own fallacious deductions and making assertions based upon subjective opinion that have NO basis in linguistic fact or translational validity whatsoever. None.

This is the human pride of life. This is arrogance upon ignorance. Why would you persist with your own personal biases as dogma just because of predispositions.

I’ve exhaustively examined EVERY possible variant of Theology Proper for over two decades, and can explicate any and all of them (including probably 20 or more that you’re not even aware of, like Pneumatomachianism, etc.).

Why do you think your subjective opinion matters for jack? Why do think your surmisings are superior to two thousand years of exegesis and apologetics by all those who have explicated the Trinity doctrine in all its revelatory minutiae?

Why? Why is your paltry human Modernist subjective opinion anything that matters in the scope of Theology Proper? This is an anthropocentric, autocentric, and egocentric NON-cosmological manner of thinking and reasoning according to corrupted epistemics. It’s self-delusion of self-importance.

You’re anathema, and one NT English rendering for this term is “cursed”. You are outside the faith if this is your genuine confession.

 

[Dartman]

Well... You can take solace that you’ll one day be in the lake of fire for your stubborn blasphemy and faithlessness, I suppose. That’s not much solace.

This IS a Christian forum. Unitarianism is not Christian. Why would you be surprised?

My prayer is that Jehovah/YHVH God will soften your hard heart, and you will realize it's your theory that is the false God.

 

[Dartman]

The Jews are now Rabbinic Pharisaic Talmudists, and they’re antichrist. The Synagogue of Satan.

Some are.
The thousands and thousands that converted on or after the day of Pentecost weren't.

And, even those that did not convert, had an accurate Theology, an accurate understanding of WHAT they worshiped, Jesus stated this way;

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: WE know what WE worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Jesus fully endorsed, and shared, the THEOLOGY of the Jews.
Jesus fully criticized all that refused to submit to his God with their heart/spirits.

And you’re no historian any more than you’re a linguist or exegete.

Your harsh, arrogant words MIGHT slightly sting .... If I respected your opinion.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

I have read your three Posts, but only extracted a few portions.

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

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.

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

I suggested Luke 1:34-35 and Luke 2:40,52 because they form a foundation of my belief, and in contrast these seem to me to contradict the Trinity teaching.

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)?

My “superficial belief” also has trouble with the Trinitarian view of “morphe” rendered as the “form of God” (KJV) or “being in very nature of God” (NIV) in Philippians 2:6 because the same word is translated as “the form of a servant” KJV or “taking the very nature of a servant” in Philippians 2:7. What is “the very nature of a servant”? I believe that the form of God was the disposition of the mind of Jesus as he matured before his ministry and also during his ministry. It is not talking about a supposed incarnation.

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.
[… I have cut this section to abbreviate the Post, but I am not excluding what you say]
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.

Have you thoroughly studied linguistics, and the biblical languages in particular? Do you understand Greek anarthrous nouns, noun cases, and the aortist verb tense? Have you read all the Patristics and compared their usages of linguistic terms and their lexical meanings and applications to have a thorough understanding of the consistent historical expression and representation of the Trinity doctrine?

No. You haven’t and won’t. And by your own words, you don’t understand any explanation of the Trinity doctrine. So you continue to spit into the wind, opposing the authentic historical and orthodox Christian faith’s Theology Proper.
[… I have cut this section to abbreviate the Post, but I am not excluding what you say]
I’ve exhaustively examined EVERY possible variant of Theology Proper for over two decades, and can explicate any and all of them (including probably 20 or more that you’re not even aware of, like Pneumatomachianism, etc.).

Why do you think your subjective opinion matters for jack? Why do think your surmisings are superior to two thousand years of exegesis and apologetics by all those who have explicated the Trinity doctrine in all its revelatory minutiae?

Why? Why is your paltry human Modernist subjective opinion anything that matters in the scope of Theology Proper? This is an anthropocentric, autocentric, and egocentric NON-cosmological manner of thinking and reasoning according to corrupted epistemics. It’s self-delusion of self-importance.

You’re anathema, and one NT English rendering for this term is “cursed”. You are outside the faith if this is your genuine confession.

You are correct, I have not studied Early Church history or the original languages. I did read a book on the development of the Trinity, and posted a summary on a Post. I submitted this summary to one of our members and he agreed that it was a reasonable assessment. He has studied this era and has given a lecture on this, and also a series of four studies. He quotes the various views as they developed in some of the Early Church fathers. Apple7 may know this member of our cult, as he is DB who discussed the Trinity with RB in 2010, but not on the aspect of the Early Church fathers. My role at our meeting is as the Librarian, but I have a much larger personal library as I collect resources. My present project(s) are concerning the Psalms partly using two recently purchased books by a Jewish Hebrew scholar and the second by a CofE Hebrew scholar. Does your own scholarship have a wide range? I rely on many specialists in my cult fellowship.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

#326: I maintain that it was an Angel, and continue to respect our senior expositors.

You respect other humans, over God.

#327: You did not comment on the alternative text “the only begotten Son”, upon which the KJV bases its translation. Of course you prefer the corrupt “Trinity text”.

The text is the same.


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

My prayer is that Jehovah/YHVH God will soften your hard heart, and you will realize it's your theory that is the false God.

Too late. God already did those things. That’s why I’m Trinitarian, even though I have niggling challenges of my own for many in modernity.

My heart was softened to know the Trinity doctrine is no theory. It’s the foundation for all truth and life.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Some are.
The thousands and thousands that converted on or after the day of Pentecost weren't.

And, even those that did not convert, had an accurate Theology, an accurate understanding of WHAT they worshiped, Jesus stated this way;

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: WE know what WE worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Jesus fully endorsed, and shared, the THEOLOGY of the Jews.
Jesus fully criticized all that refused to submit to his God with their heart/spirits.

Your harsh, arrogant words MIGHT slightly sting .... If I respected your opinion.

This is Judaizing. This is gross error. Not much left to say. You oppose yourself.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

I have read your three Posts, but only extracted a few portions.
I suggested Luke 1:34-35 and Luke 2:40,52 because they form a foundation of my belief, and in contrast these seem to me to contradict the Trinity teaching.

Your belief is irrelevant, just as is everyone else’s. What matters is explicitly what the divinely inspired text says and means. What “seems” to someone is also irrelevant. All that matters is objective truth as presented by grammatical forms. These represent object as subject.

My “superficial belief” also has trouble with the Trinitarian view of “morphe” rendered as the “form of God” (KJV) or “being in very nature of God” (NIV) in Philippians 2:6 because the same word is translated as “the form of a servant” KJV or “taking the very nature of a servant” in Philippians 2:7. What is “the very nature of a servant”? I believe that the form of God was the disposition of the mind of Jesus as he matured before his ministry and also during his ministry. It is not talking about a supposed incarnation.

You don’t know what morphe means. And you don’t know what schema means. This is the problem.

You are correct, I have not studied Early Church history or the original languages.

And there you have it. So you can’t possibly know what words and grammatical forms mean, beginning with anarthrous nouns, noun cases, and the aorist verb tense. Nor the same for in-depth word meanings in their full scope and applications.

I did read a book on the development of the Trinity, and posted a summary on a Post.

That’s it? You, with your own innate biases, read one book?

I submitted this summary to one of our members and he agreed that it was a reasonable assessment.

And how would I be able to assess this assessment?

You don’t even know the difference between rhema and logos. So how could you possibly understand what logos means and instead conflate it with rhemata as words?

He has studied this era and has given a lecture on this, and also a series of four studies. He quotes the various views as they developed in some of the Early Church fathers. Apple7 may know this member of our cult, as he is DB who discussed the Trinity with RB in 2010, but not on the aspect of the Early Church fathers. My role at our meeting is as the Librarian, but I have a much larger personal library as I collect resources. My present project(s) are concerning the Psalms partly using two recently purchased books by a Jewish Hebrew scholar and the second by a CofE Hebrew scholar. Does your own scholarship have a wide range? I rely on many specialists in my cult fellowship.

I suppose it depends on who’s evaluating any answer I would give. I’d say it’s quite a wide range. I undoubtedly don’t rely on the same “specialist” sources from your cult fellowship.

Kind regards
Trevor[/QUOTE]

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

Your belief is irrelevant, just as is everyone else’s. What matters is explicitly what the divinely inspired text says and means. What “seems” to someone is also irrelevant. All that matters is objective truth as presented by grammatical forms.
You don’t even know the difference between rhema and logos. So how could you possibly understand what logos means and instead conflate it with rhemata as words?

I appreciate your response. I will continue to hold fast to what I have assessed to be the teaching of the Bible, even though you claim that I am not qualified to assess this properly.

That’s it? You, with your own innate biases, read one book?
And how would I be able to assess this assessment?

I will not requote my summary. I was simply suggesting that there may be two perspectives on some of these things.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

You respect other humans, over God.

I seek to prove all things and hold fast to what is good. Our fellowship does not produce clones and there is much ebb and flow of people and ideas.

The text is the same.

The first sentence of the NET Bible note states ”The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one.”

Kind regards
Trevor