fishrovmen
Active member
GT's version of "Who's on First"? I always liked Abbott and Costello.
Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
God's Truth
New member
Don't blame me if you have no understanding.
God's Truth
New member
:chuckle:
fishrovmen
Active member
I always thought that Jesus was seated AT the right hand of the Father, but now I see that Jesus is sitting ON his own right hand. I guess his left hand holds the sceptre.
God's Truth
New member
God came as a Man. God has a visible body. What is so funny about that?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Since the trinitarian God is composed of Father and son and Holy Spirit, then all three came as a man?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Well that is an interesting conclusion
Are you saying that Father and son and Holy Spirit are the same being/person?
What is different from the standard trinity doctrine?
For that matter, who cares since Jesus Christ is not God the son, but rather the son of God.
God's Truth
New member
All three are One and the same Spirit. All three came as a Man.
God's Truth
New member
The trinity doctrine says that Jesus is God, but not the Father. Since Jesus is God, he must also be the Father and the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.
They are One and the same.
There is only One God, and He is the Father.
Again, if Jesus is God, and he is, then he is also the Father.
Luke 3:21-22 disputes you there:
21 When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. 22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”
God's Truth
New member
The scriptures do not dispute me.
Luke 3:21-22 is about the Holy Spirit coming on Jesus with power, for his earthly ministry. God the Father in heaven testifies about His Son.
How do you think that disproves what I said?
You also disproved what you said earlier with your own admission there, Jesus cannot be the Father, unless you believe He was throwing his voice in that passage, you admit yourself one is in heaven, and one on earth, yet also say they are the same person.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God's Truth
New member
There is only One God, and He is the Father.
There are three, and the three are One God.
Jesus was God, the founder of Christianity. He was in right relationship with God, disciples, other believers. He is not an excuse to disagree with Paul and the Spirit on the importance of local church fellowship, etc.
GT arguing about Luther, Wesley, etc. being Lone Ranger is also not valid since they were part of churches and encourage fellowship, not isolation like you and GT.
No, you confuse nature and personal distinction as usual. Only the Word/Logos/Son became flesh, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1; Phil. 2; Col. 1).
Your last post on the debate again tries to deny that your view is modalistic. A fringe Mormon group might teach things contrary to sound Mormonism, but that does not make them official or correct.
You have a mildly different view than dominant modalistic views, but you are essentially the same. Likewise, JWs are modern Arians, but they do not believe identical to Arius on all points. Oneness is modern Sabellianism heresy, but that does not mean it is identical on all points to His view.
Any major view can have nuanced debates and understandings. You have not invented a new view held by few and none in church history (that would be arrogant and astronomically unlikely). You have a flawed understanding of a better version of Oneness. You both agree that there is one person (you say at the same time, but they also agree at the same time, but arbitrary name changes/manifestations that really don't change the unipersonality theory).
So, your semantics are different, but the view is still basically modalistic. This is not a problem if it is true. Your disagreement with Unitarian or trinitarian views is far more dramatic than your wording vs normative Oneness wording. Either way, you are anti-trinitarian, just like Arian and Oneness views (but you affirm Deity of Christ, unlike Arian).
You really are not reasonable and make up things to suit yourself vs objective, normative understanding of these debates.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Not according to I Corinthians 8:6
- Status