Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problems with the Trinity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

    Read the sticky.

    "The new standard for the "Exclusively Christian Theology" is to allow anyone to post here who considers themselves to be Christian and considers the Bible to be inspired by God."

    I am posting in the right section.
    Yes you are by their own rules
    "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

    "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

    Pro scripture = Protestant

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

      You don't need to go on and on. Just give be a single counterexample before the 4th century. The hypostatic union, equal standing between the Son, God and Holy Spirit, the son eternally begotten, etc. Just a clear explanation of the Trinity before the 4th century.

      And no, no explanation exists in scripture.
      Absolutely right
      "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

      "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

      Pro scripture = Protestant

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

        It's not true that in all texts verses are left out. However, scriptures are twisted. Sometimes in translation. But it is clear that Trinitarian verses have been added and others changed to support the trinitarian view. I am not exaggerating.
        True
        "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

        "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

        Pro scripture = Protestant

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

          Read the sticky.

          "The new standard for the "Exclusively Christian Theology" is to allow anyone to post here who considers themselves to be Christian and considers the Bible to be inspired by God."

          I am posting in the right section.
          But, the fact is, you don't consider yourself to be a Christian. Insofar as you don't consider yourself to be a Trinitarian, you don't consider yourself to be a Christian.

          Since every Christian is a Trinitarian; since every Trinitarian is a Christian; since no non-, or anti-Trinitarian is a Christian; since every non-, or anti-Trinitarian is a non-Christian; and since you are an anti-Trinitarian, you are not a Christian.

          You obviously do not consider yourself to be a Christian; rather, you consider yourself to be a non-Trinitarian. If you considered yourself to be a Christian, then you'd consider yourself to be a Trinitarian, and to not be a non-Trinitarian.

          Ask yourself: "Do I consider myself to be a non-, or anti-Trinitarian?"

          If your answer to this question is Yes, that is nothing other than you considering yourself to be a non-, or anti-Christian.

          You are posting in the wrong section.
          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

          MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
            As I've studied the Bible I've come to disagree more and more with the Trinity. Now I'm on the cusp of openly denying it. Unfortunately, most forums actually go out of their way to prevent people from discussing the Trinity. I found it awfully surreal when I read an incomplete list of reasons why Isaac Newton was looking into the problem as well. Yet, even he couldn't discuss because most Trinitarians are murderous.
            Right here, you immediately give away that you're one more lying, self-righteous anti-Christ. It's hilarious that you just said that you are murderous, but that you're "on the cusp" of not being murderous.

            Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
            The Trinity is not something one can discuss in churches except to affirm it.
            Elementary Christian truth you point out, non-Christian.

            Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
            The second one questions it, one is thrown out.
            If by "questions it", you mean "publicly airs dissent from it", or "tries to get others to dissent from it", you've got that correct! Good riddance to wolves.

            Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
            So I can't really discuss it with Trinitarians since they refuse to do so unless I declare to be a Muslim.
            Wait, so you're saying that the Trinity is something Muslims "can discuss in churches"?

            That was your complaint, no? That one can't "discuss" the Trinity "in churches", unless one affirms the Trinity. So, here, you're complaining because you, an anti-Trinitarian, can't "discuss" the Trinity "in churches", because you don't affirm the Trinity, but Muslims can "discuss" the Trinity "in churches"?

            Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
            You'all are welcome to convince me otherwise but I'm pretty close to completely renouncing the Trinity.
            Renouncing the Trinity again? You already renounced the Trinity, in the first paragraph of your thread-starting post, you arrogant, self-righteous anti-Christ. It was no Trinitarian who wrote your thread-starting post.
            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

            MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
              . . . I'm pretty close to completely renouncing the Trinity.
              It's Catholic in its origin. That's all you have to do to scare away anybody here, they all run for the hills when there's anything Catholic nearby. All you have to do is show incontrovertibly that the Trinity originated with the Catholic Church, and you won't have anyone arguing against you because of the Puritan streak on this site. No one will defend "Catholic dogma". They'll feel dirty doing it, and if they feel that they must do it anyway, they'll be quick about it, to minimize the unsightly nature of doing the thing.

              As long as you don't have any allegiance to the Catholic Church you shouldn't have any problem yourself dropping any potential Catholic contamination out from your ideas.

              The reason I'm mentioning it is because in another thread we were remembering AMR. I once posed the question to him, What's the difference between the Catholic teaching on the Trinity, and his Reformed or Calvinist conception, and he said they were exactly the same, so right there you have it on good authority that probably the most intelligent and credentialed theology contributor here over all these years confirmed that the "Catholic" Trinity and AMR's Trinity are the exact same Trinity, and we know which one of those came first on the historical timeline, and it wasn't Calvinism, but it was Catholicism.

              And just so you know, it might occur, that someone will say something about the Orthodox conception of the Trinity, one that differs seemingly in a single small way. It's a distraction, because while the Orthodox recite "one, holy, Catholic Church," the Orthodox themselves are multiple churches, and not "one" church. The Catholic Church is one church.
              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

              @Nee_Nihilo

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Idolater View Post

                And just so you know, it might occur, that someone will say something about the Orthodox conception of the Trinity,
                That’s me! That’s me! I did that...thanks for noticing...

                one that differs seemingly in a single small way.
                seemingly in a single small way? Ha...devil is in the details of this too...not just the whole thingy

                has divided Christendom for centuries now...much blood lost over it...Fourth Crusade “accidents” everywhere...so too the northern crusades...Alas the orthodox throughout Middle East/Africa...

                Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius...or something...

                all this perhaps another good thread?

                It's a distraction,
                well it remains and does divide...I mean it is a CREED right?...”Filioque”...I mean It proceeds from the Son the Holy Spirit does NOT the Creed itself...

                Well I do hope they can resolve their Trinity its Filioque a mystery...


                because while the Orthodox recite "one, holy, Catholic Church," the Orthodox themselves are multiple churches, and not "one" church. The Catholic Church is one church.
                Welll...six rites in 24 churches...but whose counting?...not silly protestants

                But again...thanks for noticing...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Lon View Post

                  Without or without two links or two degrees. I'm out.

                  And with that he takes his ball and runs home...

                  I wish throughout history the majority view would have quit too and “I’m out” instead of persecuting and killing any dissent...

                  why so threatened by a minority stance?

                  but then I image there’d be a different outcome too...

                  I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior. Isaiah 43:11

                  HalleluYah

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                    But, the fact is, you don't consider yourself to be a Christian. Insofar as you don't consider yourself to be a Trinitarian, you don't consider yourself to be a Christian.
                    You're equating Trinitarian with Christian the same way a Roman Catholic equates Catholic with Christian. One of major problems with your argument here is that so far you are the only one who has felt fully comfortable with the Trinity. Even Lon has to modify his speech to say "Triune God" instead of Trinity.

                    Since every Christian is a Trinitarian; since every Trinitarian is a Christian; since no non-, or anti-Trinitarian is a Christian; since every non-, or anti-Trinitarian is a non-Christian; and since you are an anti-Trinitarian, you are not a Christian.
                    A circular argument.

                    You obviously do not consider yourself to be a Christian; rather, you consider yourself to be a non-Trinitarian. If you considered yourself to be a Christian, then you'd consider yourself to be a Trinitarian, and to not be a non-Trinitarian.
                    This is a straw man argument.

                    Ask yourself: "Do I consider myself to be a non-, or anti-Trinitarian?"

                    If your answer to this question is Yes, that is nothing other than you considering yourself to be a non-, or anti-Christian.
                    Answering questions where an anonymous person arbitrarily decides definitions would be foolish.

                    I have pretty much avoided term Trinity for quite some time now. I would say I have been avoiding it for at least a decade. When TrumpGirl started talking about Mary, mother of God, I decided to deny the term directly in that post instead of just avoiding it.

                    In another forum, I was speaking with a Calvinist and in the argument, he replied in with the statement 'Jesus was fully man and fully God.' The Calvinist used it to indicate that Jesus was not human like the rest of us. I was going to point out that the Bible presents Jesus as far more human than God.

                    Before I posted, I stopped. I really noticed how Jesus = God was found only through the same eisegesis process which Augustine-based predestination was found. The similarity in the manner in which both were pushed into the Bible surprised me.

                    I started with John and after clearing my mind and reading it without the presupposition that Jesus was God, I found that not only did the passages more clearly demonstrate that Jesus was not God, passages which were confusing before became less so.

                    That's when I posted this Sunday. I was hoping to get some actual decent refutation of this idea or at least a fully coherent explanation which might make me think again or perhaps someone would point out something I would completely miss. Instead, I have gotten lazy responses and condemnations.

                    A large amount of things are still unanswered as this change basically requires me to reread of the entire Bible and to examine of how this revelation changes many aspects of my theology. For example, I still have no answer to the Holy Spirit, I think I'm keeping amillennialism but the details change, etc.

                    You are posting in the wrong section.
                    I already succeeded in refuting this argument elsewhere.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                      Right here, you immediately give away that you're one more lying, self-righteous anti-Christ. It's hilarious that you just said that you are murderous, but that you're "on the cusp" of not being murderous.
                      Very Funny. First, I said most - not all. And murderous refers not just to people but ideas as well. I have mentioned before that I still have to reconcile the rest of the Bible. If I find something wrong while doing this, I will rethink my position.

                      Elementary Christian truth you point out, non-Christian.
                      A good video is the 99-1 rule by David Wood.



                      If by "questions it", you mean "publicly airs dissent from it", or "tries to get others to dissent from it", you've got that correct! Good riddance to wolves.
                      Denying Jesus is God was never a criteria used by the Apostles to eject Christians. That didn't happen until the fourth century.

                      Wait, so you're saying that the Trinity is something Muslims "can discuss in churches"?
                      You've never invited non-Christians to church? No need to make an altar call - everyone is already Christian.

                      That was your complaint, no? That one can't "discuss" the Trinity "in churches", unless one affirms the Trinity. So, here, you're complaining because you, an anti-Trinitarian, can't "discuss" the Trinity "in churches", because you don't affirm the Trinity, but Muslims can "discuss" the Trinity "in churches"?
                      I'm not complaining. I'm just stating facts and the giving the reason why I'm going to an online forum to discuss this. I've seen many who voice opinions opposing the Trinity and get away with it by stating they believe in the Trinity.

                      Similar in open theism. Writers who have voiced clearly open theist views have gotten away with it by adding to the end the book, "I'm not an open theist."

                      Renouncing the Trinity again? You already renounced the Trinity, in the first paragraph of your thread-starting post, you arrogant, self-righteous anti-Christ. It was no Trinitarian who wrote your thread-starting post.
                      You're projecting. John clearly identified Anti-Christs as those who deny Jesus was human.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

                        You're equating Trinitarian with Christian
                        What (if anything) do you mean? Are you saying that I'm "equating" the word, "Trinitarian", with the word "Christian"? If so, what (if anything) do you mean by saying that I'm "equating" the two words?

                        Every Christian is a Trinitarian; no Christian is a non-Trinitarian. Every Trinitarian is a Christian; no non-Trinitarian is a Christian. "Non-Trinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron.

                        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
                        A circular argument.
                        Oh? Then you'd better go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "a circular argument", here.

                        And then, you'd better go ahead and try to explain what (if anything) you mean by calling it "circular".

                        Of course, any parrot could be trained to just react to something by saying a phrase like, "a circular argument". But you're not just a parrot, right? So, let's see the premise(s) and the conclusion what make up what you are calling "a circular argument".

                        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
                        This is a straw man argument.
                        What, exactly, are you calling "a straw man argument"? Again, since every argument has one or more premises, and has one conclusion, then go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are, here, calling "a straw man argument".

                        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
                        Answering questions where an anonymous person arbitrarily decides definitions would be foolish.
                        By "decide definitions", what do you mean, if not "affirm that ______ is ______"?

                        Give a couple examples of you "deciding definitions", so that, perhaps, I can come to understand what (if anything) you mean by "decide definitions".

                        Then, give a couple examples of you doing what you would call "arbitrarily deciding definitions", and a couple examples of you doing what you would call "non-arbitrarily deciding definitions".

                        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
                        I have pretty much avoided [sic] term Trinity for quite some time now. I would say I have been avoiding it for at least a decade.
                        Why?

                        And why have you, of late, stopped avoiding it? For instance, just now, by saying "I have pretty much avoided the term Trinity", you failed to avoid the term, 'Trinity'.

                        Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post
                        I already succeeded in refuting this argument elsewhere.
                        "this argument"?

                        I do not know to what (if anything) you are referring by your phrase, "this argument". Once again, please do try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "this argument", since every argument consists of a conclusion, and one, or more, premises.

                        All I said (to which you reacted by saying, "I already succeeded in refuting this argument") was, "You are posting in the wrong section." Is it that single proposition what you are calling "this argument"? Or, are you saying that that single proposition, "You are posting in the wrong section", is a premise, or a conclusion, or both, of some argument you are referring to as "this argument"?

                        I want to know exactly what (if anything) it is that you are saying you "refuted".
                        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                        MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                          What (if anything) do you mean? Are you saying that I'm "equating" the word, "Trinitarian", with the word "Christian"? If so, what (if anything) do you mean by saying that I'm "equating" the two words?

                          Every Christian is a Trinitarian; no Christian is a non-Trinitarian. Every Trinitarian is a Christian; no non-Trinitarian is a Christian. "Non-Trinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron.

                          Oh? Then you'd better go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "a circular argument", here.

                          And then, you'd better go ahead and try to explain what (if anything) you mean by calling it "circular".

                          Of course, any parrot could be trained to just react to something by saying a phrase like, "a circular argument". But you're not just a parrot, right? So, let's see the premise(s) and the conclusion what make up what you are calling "a circular argument".

                          What, exactly, are you calling "a straw man argument"? Again, since every argument has one or more premises, and has one conclusion, then go ahead and try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are, here, calling "a straw man argument".

                          By "decide definitions", what do you mean, if not "affirm that ______ is ______"?

                          Give a couple examples of you "deciding definitions", so that, perhaps, I can come to understand what (if anything) you mean by "decide definitions".

                          Then, give a couple examples of you doing what you would call "arbitrarily deciding definitions", and a couple examples of you doing what you would call "non-arbitrarily deciding definitions".

                          Why?

                          And why have you, of late, stopped avoiding it? For instance, just now, by saying "I have pretty much avoided the term Trinity", you failed to avoid the term, 'Trinity'.

                          "this argument"?

                          I do not know to what (if anything) you are referring by your phrase, "this argument". Once again, please do try to lay out the premise(s) and the conclusion of what (if anything) you are calling "this argument", since every argument consists of a conclusion, and one, or more, premises.

                          All I said (to which you reacted by saying, "I already succeeded in refuting this argument") was, "You are posting in the wrong section." Is it that single proposition what you are calling "this argument"? Or, are you saying that that single proposition, "You are posting in the wrong section", is a premise, or a conclusion, or both, of some argument you are referring to as "this argument"?

                          I want to know exactly what (if anything) it is that you are saying you "refuted".
                          If you have some evidence for the Trinity or that Jesus is God, You're more than welcome to present it.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

                            If you have some evidence for the Trinity or that Jesus is God, You're more than welcome to present it.
                            I have many of those scriptures, but you would rather limit your discussion to those who don't have knowledge than to talk to me.

                            Hiltrot: I will talk to those who don't know anything like me.
                            Oh how I love the Word of God!

                            Don't just hear the word and believe it---do it.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by God's Truth View Post

                              I have many of those scriptures, but you would rather limit your discussion to those who don't have knowledge than to talk to me.

                              Hiltrot: I will talk to those who don't know anything like me.
                              I believe I've responded to all of your questions but if I missed something, please point it out.

                              I am open to reading and examining any scripture which you provide and a full explanation of how you read that scripture would also be appreciated.

                              I won't say that I will necessarily change my mind to your viewpoint, but I am more than willing to learn what your view is.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Hilltrot View Post

                                I believe I've responded to all of your questions but if I missed something, please point it out.

                                I am open to reading and examining any scripture which you provide and a full explanation of how you read that scripture would also be appreciated.

                                I won't say that I will necessarily change my mind to your viewpoint, but I am more than willing to learn what your view is.
                                I've made posts to you that you have ignored.

                                You and the trinitarians deserve each other.
                                Oh how I love the Word of God!

                                Don't just hear the word and believe it---do it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X