Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

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

  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Don't presume to know something about me you can't possibly know. I am well aware words have formal meaning, they also have colloquial usages. I have neither to time nor desire to discuss the semantics of ancient Greek with you. While I concede your obviously greater knowledge, I have a better understanding of the subject than you highly inflated ego is willing to give credit.

    I'm not "hyper-sensitive" at all. I've read many of your posts to Trevor and can't believe someone can be as condescending as you have been to him. Perhaps I missed it but you've spend all of your bandwidth belittling him and how your knowledge exceeded his and how stupid he is to not possess your insight, using not a single zero or one to be anything close to a marginally effective doctor.

    Yet, as I said above, you spent not one sentence to increase his understanding. As for the "Trinity", I have yet to read any explanation not ending with, "Its a mystery". Sally Field would be jealous.

    Being a bully is an integral component of being "christian"... check.

    "Clueless" is a word I would use to describe you. Step outside of your ego and you'll immediately understand what the word means and how it applies to you.
    Not really worth a response with subject matter. It would be futile.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,Another resource that I have in my library is the following book. I am not fully endorsing this book and all that he says and represents, but he was the Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France. I asked my cult member DB his assessment of the following, without sending the book to him. He thought that it was a reasonable assessment, and thought that the comments on the Nicea Council were interesting and relevant. The following is only a few samples that caught my attention when I first read this book.

    History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 3rd French Edition (from translation 1905)
    Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

    After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
    Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.
    These are both vagueries of subjective opinion based upon presupposition taken to the topic.

    Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

    Speaking of the developments in the second century:
    Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.
    Referring to the Ebionites, primarily. And this is patently false. There was never anything but an emphasis on the equality of the humanity and divinity of the Son. Never was the Son considered anything less than having divinity accompanying His humanity. What took time was the clarity of expressing this, not that everyone originally only thought Christ was human and then began to include the idea of divinity more and more.

    As I said, it was the trial and error of maintaining Monotheism while best expressing the hows and whys and whats of the “threeness” that was divinity.

    Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.
    This is dangerously vague, and actually quite misleading. The author has carefully chosen his own words from his own biases. It’s glaringly obvious to any historian of ancient literary works.

    Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.
    Full-on BS, superimposed subjectively by the author from his own extreme bias.

    Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.
    Of course. And they were an extreme minority, and were dealt with according their Judaizing. Ebionism was a thing, but not any kind of predominant foundation. They were outliers, just like the LDS and JW cults of today (and your own unnamed cult).

    Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.
    And yet this author is maliciously caricaturing Athanasius and others, as well as the whole landscape of that time. I’m likely one of the preeminent historians of this whole era and of Theology Proper (not a self-attribution, BTW, but by others), and this author is doing nothing but grinding his Socinian axe via tainted opinion from presupposition.

    Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.
    LOL. Pure BS. And Arius’ bowels gushed out during the controversy and he died. All present insisted it was the direct judgment of God. He literally just suddenly ruptured and died, and immediately after a scathing verbal attack on Trinitarians.

    And Arius insisted the Son was divinity; but felt that co-equality demeaned the Father and compromised Monotheism. But at least he always adhered to the Son being divinity of some kind, not merely a human creation. Arius insisted there was a time when the Son was not, indicating an emanation type of creation for the Son as a “lower” celestial divinity.

    This is a far cry from the Socinian views you and your cult hold.

    Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.
    Not at all. It was “in common acceptance” among a small minority, and resurged at times depending upon Roman support from particular Emperors.

    Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
    Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
    More authorial “fudgery”. He’s just recasting it all in his own skewed mold. Athanasius and others were accepting of Semi-Arianism and Semi-Sabellianism to the extent that the major understanding could be reconciled. NEVER was either accepted or endorsed in any manner. There were certain concessions to paradox, and nothing more. The divinity of the Son was NEVER in question. Only the matter of how to best express it and maintain Monotheism and the preeminence of the Father.

    Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
    I was wondering when he was going to make this blunder and show his bias and ignorance. There was no imperial coercion in the process whatsoever. The Emperor mandated that there be a council to settle the dispute. He had given Christians such favor in the Empire that the brewing schism was a socio-political threat to the Empire with so many Christians in favorable positions of authority and service.

    The Arian view was always a vast minority view. But there were expressional vagueries that smacked of Semi-Arianism, and those were the issue that had to be resolved. The only Imperial edict was that the Bishops must resolve it.

    Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.
    Utter rubbish.

    Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.
    Tangential and mostly misrepresentational. And still very vague.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    You may think this author and his work to be valid and profound. After reading only these excerpts, I can say he and his work are uneqivocally historical revisionism.

    It’s to be expected. He obviously wrote and lectures based on his preconceptions and presuppositions. Not surprising, really.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma, I have summarised your response above. Yes it is true I have not studied the early Church fathers.
    And yet you demean them, dismiss them, and reject them, having never perused their writings for yourself. You’ve said quite absolute things of the Early Fathers, yet know nothing of them besides hearsay and scattered snippets that are horribly incorrect summaries that are not quotes.

    I would be interested if you agree or disagree with one member of my cult’s assessment of the gradual development of the Trinity.
    It’s not quite that simple. The terminologies and exclusions were gradual in a sense. More like a sequential process of inclusion and omission.

    The overall macro of the Trinity concept has never really been in question. It was a matter of how to best express it, and what to exclude as unacceptable or in question between East and West in minutiae.

    One of the earliest expressions was that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were God, His Word, and His Wisdom (by Hippolytus and others). So the divinity of the Son has NEVER validly been in question. It was an issue of maintaining Monotheism and clear preeminence of the Father while accounting for the “threeness” of F/S/HS in particular terms.

    It wasn’t as if it was gradual in the sense of new ideas emerging to eclipse and supplant previous understandings. It was all greater clarification, and specifically between East and West. And it was not a process of position assertion; but that aspect emerged out of excluding that which was clearly necessary to anathematize.

    It would be far more accurate to refer to it as a deliberate process of clear expression rather than saying it was gradual as though that meant it was somehow in flux and constanting changing and ultimately becoming something it never was to begin with. And that’s basically what you and your source are fallaciously saying.

    He has studied this subject and has given a lecture on the Trinity and a series of studies on early Church development.
    But he assuredly “studied” it with his own preconceptions and suppositions well established; so it wasn’t unbiased in the least. If you’re Christadelphian (and I’d think it highly likely that is possible), then I well know the processes of that brand of scholasticism. It’s unwaveringly skewed to begin. (And that’s true of other Socinian/Unitarian groups as well.)

    The following is extracted from a few of his slides from his lecture. I could add his comments on each of these “fathers” if required, but the lecture was on many aspects and therefore the following summaries are very brief. I would have to send you the studies by Dropbox if you want more detail.

    From the slides by DB:
    Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
    The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

    Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
    The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

    Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

    Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
    The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

    Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
    The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him
    To this point, these summaries are horrific. I’ve read every last word all of these have written, and this is in no way authentically representative of their positions. And to the extent that they may have written something remotely similar, they all ultimately agreed at the latest points of their lives and ministries.

    Much of this seems to be taking great liberties and also taking advantage of the fact that early apologetics took time to coallesce into unified expression, thus discarding the earliest expressions that were less representative of what all progressively agreed upon. There was no contention between these Fathers, only a co-sharpening of their expressions in appropriate terminology.

    Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
    Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

    Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

    Council of Nicaea (AD 325)
    Officially declares Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father

    Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
    Officially declares Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God
    These are all accurate and appropriate. But whomever compiled these summaries is either lax in their scholarship or intentionally deceptive.

    I am not here to advertise my cult,
    I think it’s much more than that. You don’t want anyone to be able to name your cult so that it will be rightly considered antichrist.

    but to discuss the Scriptures.
    But you don’t realize that scripture is comprised of words that have grammatical forms and semantical meanings that far exceed, and conflict with, your own command of linguistics and your chosen lexicon of expression.

    Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox?

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Lutheran (LCMS), and with a great and humble affinity for the Eastern Church. She was the original, and gave us the terminologies for all doctrine.
    Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; April 13th, 2019, 03:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silent Hunter
    replied
    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Not true, ask any politician .
    So? What does your rant about Greek have to do with how Trevor used an ENGLISH adjective? Trevor is simply trying to be nice
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    You’ve just made my point. He’s being “nice” (which is from nescient, meaning mindless), which is not the same as “kind” (chrestotes, as I said).

    These are far from synonyms, and it’s the corruption of language and culture to conflate them (which you and so many do in total ignorance).
    Don't presume to know something about me you can't possibly know. I am well aware words have formal meaning, they also have colloquial usages. I have neither to time nor desire to discuss the semantics of ancient Greek with you. While I concede your obviously greater knowledge, I have a better understanding of the subject than you highly inflated ego is willing to give credit.

    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    and you're bullying him in return;
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Nope. You/Trevor being hyper-sensitive doesn’t mean I’m “bullying”.
    I'm not "hyper-sensitive" at all. I've read many of your posts to Trevor and can't believe someone can be as condescending as you have been to him. Perhaps I missed it but you've spend all of your bandwidth belittling him and how your knowledge exceeded his and how stupid he is to not possess your insight, using not a single zero or one to be anything close to a marginally effective doctor.

    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    I’m pointing out, accurately, that he has no idea what words mean, which is quite pertinent to the topic at hand. Since he has no idea what words mean, he misrepresents the Trinity and doesn’t know the truth about much of anything. (Not that this is particularly unusual, but I specifically point out those who are antichrists opposing the one true God.)
    Yet, as I said above, you spent not one sentence to increase his understanding. As for the "Trinity", I have yet to read any explanation not ending with, "Its a mystery". Sally Field would be jealous.

    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    not a very christian act on your part by any measure.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    On the contrary, it’s utterly Cappadocian (the key Patristics who clarified these very things in the mid-to-late 4th century so that heretics don’t have to depend on their own false concepts devoid of linguistic acumen, etc.).

    It’s wholly unChristian to oppose the Trinity doctrine, especially when advocating for heresy and misrepresenting core doctrine of the faith once delivered to the saints.
    Being a bully is an integral component of being "christian"... check.

    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Seems more of an impossibility for you than it is for Trevor. At least he's making an effort to be civil. Why can't you?
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Civility is a word you’re using in a modern progressive manner relative to alleged “social justice”, which is a fallacy in itself.

    And civil isn’t “kind” OR “nice”.

    Words have meaning. Misusing them is actually one of the most heinous forms of bullying imaginable, for it’s an attempt to conform others to one’s own internal paradigms of total error and subjective nothingness.

    Trevor might as well be saying zebras are giraffes. That’s how poorly he expresses the Trinity. He knows nothing of it. Literally. And yet he has somehow eliminated and rejected the Trinity without having a clue what the Trinity is or means, and without being a linguist or exegete or expositor or theologian or historian or anything else that matters related to this and so much else.

    Passive-aggressive stubbornness in apostasy is NOT civility. It’s what it is. (And it’s not kindness, either.)

    Kindness is one of the apsects of the fruit of the Spirit. Antichrists (such as those who oppose the Trinity) cannot be kind, for they have not the Spirit and its fruit. All they can do is be “nice”, which is a mindless endeavor of those who haven’t had the changed condition of heart and mind that is repentance (the Greek anarthrous noun).
    "Clueless" is a word I would use to describe you. Step outside of your ego and you'll immediately understand what the word means and how it applies to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrevorL
    replied
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Incorrect, as always. I demonstrate the entirety of Theology Proper from extensive scriptural lexicography for the terms used therein. The Patristics did, too. That’s why we agree and you do not. You don’t know what any of the words mean, so you don’t have any idea what the Trinity doctrine is. And then you make such false assuptions in arrears that it must be because I merely adhere to the Patristics.
    Another resource that I have in my library is the following book. I am not fully endorsing this book and all that he says and represents, but he was the Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France. I asked my cult member DB his assessment of the following, without sending the book to him. He thought that it was a reasonable assessment, and thought that the comments on the Nicea Council were interesting and relevant. The following is only a few samples that caught my attention when I first read this book.

    History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 3rd French Edition (from translation 1905)
    Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

    After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
    Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

    Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

    Speaking of the developments in the second century:
    Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

    Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

    Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

    Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

    Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

    Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

    Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

    Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
    Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
    Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
    Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

    Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Leave a comment:


  • TrevorL
    replied
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Incorrect, as always. I demonstrate the entirety of Theology Proper from extensive scriptural lexicography for the terms used therein. The Patristics did, too. That’s why we agree and you do not. And how would you know whether the Patristics are correct or not? You haven’t read them, And how would you know their expositions are unscriptural when you’re not an expositor and don’t know what their expositions ARE?
    Your entire premise is built upon total ignorance. You don’t know scriptural linguistics, history, OR the contents of Patristic writings that are validated BY their expositions if one does know these things.
    ALL the terms utilized for the fundamental truths of the Trinity doctrine are directly present in scripture. Nothing is merely philosophical or according to words external to the biblical text. You just don’t know what any of the words mean, nor have you even accessed them and assembled them to begin comprehending the Trinity for what it IS rather than what you project it to be.
    I have summarised your response above. Yes it is true I have not studied the early Church fathers. I would be interested if you agree or disagree with one member of my cult’s assessment of the gradual development of the Trinity. He has studied this subject and has given a lecture on the Trinity and a series of studies on early Church development. The following is extracted from a few of his slides from his lecture. I could add his comments on each of these “fathers” if required, but the lecture was on many aspects and therefore the following summaries are very brief. I would have to send you the studies by Dropbox if you want more detail.

    From the slides by DB:
    Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
    The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

    Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
    The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

    Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

    Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
    The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

    Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
    The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

    Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
    Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

    Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

    Council of Nicaea (AD 325)
    Officially declares Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father

    Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
    Officially declares Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God
    What’s the name of your cult? Why will you not answer?
    I am not here to advertise my cult, but to discuss the Scriptures. Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox?

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Not true, ask any politician .
    So? What does your rant about Greek have to do with how Trevor used an ENGLISH adjective? Trevor is simply trying to be nice
    You’ve just made my point. He’s being “nice” (which is from nescient, meaning mindless), which is not the same as “kind” (chrestotes, as I said).

    These are far from synonyms, and it’s the corruption of language and culture to conflate them (which you and so many do in total ignorance).

    and you're bullying him in return;
    Nope. You/Trevor being hyper-sensitive doesn’t mean I’m “bullying”. I’m pointing out, accurately, that he has no idea what words mean, which is quite pertinent to the topic at hand. Since he has no idea what words mean, he misrepresents the Trinity and doesn’t know the truth about much of anything. (Not that this is particularly unusual, but I specifically point out those who are antichrists opposing the one true God.)

    not a very christian act on your part by any measure.
    On the contrary, it’s utterly Cappadocian (the key Patristics who clarified these very things in the mid-to-late 4th century so that heretics don’t have to depend on their own false concepts devoid of linguistic acumen, etc.).

    It’s wholly unChristian to oppose the Trinity doctrine, especially when advocating for heresy and misrepresenting core doctrine of the faith once delivered to the saints.

    Seems more of an impossibility for you than it is for Trevor. At least he's making an effort to be civil. Why can't you?
    Civility is a word you’re using in a modern progressive manner relative to alleged “social justice”, which is a fallacy in itself.

    And civil isn’t “kind” OR “nice”.

    Words have meaning. Misusing them is actually one of the most heinous forms of bullying imaginable, for it’s an attempt to conform others to one’s own internal paradigms of total error and subjective nothingness.

    Trevor might as well be saying zebras are giraffes. That’s how poorly he expresses the Trinity. He knows nothing of it. Literally. And yet he has somehow eliminated and rejected the Trinity without having a clue what the Trinity is or means, and without being a linguist or exegete or expositor or theologian or historian or anything else that matters related to this and so much else.

    Passive-aggressive stubbornness in apostasy is NOT civility. It’s what it is. (And it’s not kindness, either.)

    Kindness is one of the apsects of the fruit of the Spirit. Antichrists (such as those who oppose the Trinity) cannot be kind, for they have not the Spirit and its fruit. All they can do is be “nice”, which is a mindless endeavor of those who haven’t had the changed condition of heart and mind that is repentance (the Greek anarthrous noun).
    Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; April 12th, 2019, 01:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silent Hunter
    replied
    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Sure it does. "Kind", as an adjective, means exactly how Trevor intends.

    generous, helpful, and caring about other people:

    She’s a kind, thoughtful person.
    It was kind of you to give me your seat.
    It's very kind of you to help us.
    Please be kind to your sister!
    Would you be kind enough to/so kind as to close the door?
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    One must espouse the truth to genuinely care about others.
    Not true, ask any politician .
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    And the Greek word for which “kind” is used in translation is “chrestotes”. Neither you nor he knows what it means, and an English dictionary is barely relevant when addressing Greek words. This is one of the core fallacies of modern English doctrinal trajectories; presuming shallow modern English meanings determine what Greek semantics actually mean.
    So? What does your rant about Greek have to do with how Trevor used an ENGLISH adjective? Trevor is simply trying to be nice and you're bullying him in return; not a very christian act on your part by any measure.
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    It is impossible for him (or you) to be kind. Neither of you can be chrestotes.
    Seems more of an impossibility for you than it is for Trevor. At least he's making an effort to be civil. Why can't you?

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Sure it does. "Kind", as an adjective, means exactly how Trevor intends.

    generous, helpful, and caring about other people:

    She’s a kind, thoughtful person.
    It was kind of you to give me your seat.
    It's very kind of you to help us.
    Please be kind to your sister!
    Would you be kind enough to/so kind as to close the door?
    One must espouse the truth to genuinely care about others.

    And the Greek word for which “kind” is used in translation is “chrestotes”. Neither you nor he knows what it means, and an English dictionary is barely relevant when addressing Greek words. This is one of the core fallacies of modern English doctrinal trajectories; presuming shallow modern English meanings determine what Greek semantics actually mean.

    It is impossible for him (or you) to be kind. Neither of you can be chrestotes.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma, As I stated before in my previous Post:
    But I suggest that you do not discuss the Scriptures on this subject but claim authority from your learning of the Church fathers and their unscriptural expositions. Next time that you rant I will not answer. Btw I thought I had better check the word “rant” before posting in case you are an authority on this word as well as the word “kind”. Perhaps “rant” is too strong here, but I will leave it in my reply as well as the word “kind”. Did you look up the first two meanings of “neophyte”? they do not seem to be that bad. I hope to discuss the Scriptures with others nevertheless, whether on this thread, this forum or elsewhere as opportunity presents. Again you did not respond to Psalm 110:1. Perhaps you may like to quote what the Church fathers stated about this verse. I am not sure if Apple7's unusual treatment of this verse is derived from these "fathers", where he advocated that "right hand" in Psalm 110:1 is the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with his view? or is Jesus the Son of God actually seated at the right hand of God, His Father? Two Beings.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Incorrect, as always. I demonstrate the entirety of Theology Proper from extensive scriptural lexicography for the terms used therein. The Patristics did, too. That’s why we agree and you do not. You don’t know what any of the words mean, so you don’t have any idea what the Trinity doctrine is. And then you make such false assuptions in arrears that it must be because I merely adhere to the Patristics.

    And how would you know whether the Patristics are correct or not? You haven’t read them, and you’re not a linguist to be able to assess the words of scripture and their full depth and breadth of meaning with grammatical forms. And how would you know their expositions are unscriptural when you’re not an expositor and don’t know what their expositions ARE?

    Your entire premise is built upon total ignorance. You don’t know scriptural linguistics, history, OR the contents of Patristic writings that are validated BY their expositions if one does know these things.

    All you have is your false concepts and subjective opinions based on erroneous strawman caricatures of anything and everything. You’re not an exegete or expositor or linguist or anything else, but you presume your bad depictions are somehow even remotely accurate.

    Yet you will make such bold and ridiculous claims as you have done above, which are just more deductive subjective fallacy.

    ALL the terms utilized for the fundamental truths of the Trinity doctrine are directly present in scripture. Nothing is merely philosophical or according to words external to the biblical text. You just don’t know what any of the words mean, nor have you even accessed them and assembled them to begin comprehending the Trinity for what it IS rather than what you project it to be.

    AND OF COURSE YOU’RE WILLING TO CEASE RESPONDING TO ME IF I CONTINUE TO RESPOND IN THIS MANNER. IT DESTROYS EVERY WORD YOU SAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE IS, NOR ANY OTHER WORDS IN THE ENTIRE INSPIRED TEXT.


    What’s the name of your cult? Why will you not answer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    Jesus is called YHWH, that is correct. To say that Jesus is the one true God is incorrect. In the same way that one who is baptized into Christ and puts on Christ is Christ but not the one true Christ. A Christian is to represent Christ by his death, burial, and resurrection as symbolized in immersion in water. We are to walk as Christ in the same way that Jesus represents YHWH.
    Anti-Christ opinions run rampant in the world today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    The Scriptures call for more than a superficial reading.
    I don't read it superficially.

    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    Jesus spoke in parables to the multitude not to open their eyes but to close them.


    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    And the Scriptures throughout are filled with symbolism where one thing represents another. If one is not interested in the deep things of God he will never understand the Scriptures.


    Have you pumped yourself up enough yet?

    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    The required righteousness of the believer is God's righteousness imputed to the believer. And Jesus is called the righteousness of God because God imputes His righteousness to us through faith in God's promises. T
    That scripture calls the righteous BRANCH.... the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Not "the Lord's righteousness" or any other such thing.

    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    he symbolism of the needed righteousness is referred to as clothing. Paul says our own righteousness is as filthy rags.The required righteousness calls for us to "Put on Christ" as a garment. When that happens, God's righteousness is imputed to us by our faith. Just as Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness.
    None of that has anything to do with the scripture in Jeremiah 23.

    Originally posted by Vail Lifted View Post
    Jesus represents God's righteousness because it is by and through him that the believer is made the righteousness of God. Calling Jesus "YHWH our righteousness" is simply to see that God's righteousness comes through the one whom He appointed and anointed.
    Baloney.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vail Lifted
    replied
    Jesus is called YHWH, that is correct. To say that Jesus is the one true God is incorrect. In the same way that one who is baptized into Christ and puts on Christ is Christ but not the one true Christ. A Christian is to represent Christ by his death, burial, and resurrection as symbolized in immersion in water. We are to walk as Christ in the same way that Jesus represents YHWH.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vail Lifted
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    Jer 23:5-6 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    Jesus is the LORD.
    The Scriptures call for more than a superficial reading. Jesus spoke in parables to the multitude not to open their eyes but to close them. And the Scriptures throughout are filled with symbolism where one thing represents another. If one is not interested in the deep things of God he will never understand the Scriptures.

    The required righteousness of the believer is God's righteousness imputed to the believer. And Jesus is called the righteousness of God because God imputes His righteousness to us through faith in God's promises. The symbolism of the needed righteousness is referred to as clothing. Paul says our own righteousness is as filthy rags.The required righteousness calls for us to "Put on Christ" as a garment. When that happens, God's righteousness is imputed to us by our faith. Just as Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness.
    Jesus represents God's righteousness because it is by and through him that the believer is made the righteousness of God. Calling Jesus "YHWH our righteousness" is simply to see that God's righteousness comes through the one whom He appointed and anointed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silent Hunter
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Again, you always close with yet another word you don’t understand except in shallow English fallacy. “Kind” does NOT mean what you think it does, just like most other words you use.
    Sure it does. "Kind", as an adjective, means exactly how Trevor intends.

    generous, helpful, and caring about other people:

    She’s a kind, thoughtful person.
    It was kind of you to give me your seat.
    It's very kind of you to help us.
    Please be kind to your sister!
    Would you be kind enough to/so kind as to close the door?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X