Good luck with that, delusional one.:nono:
Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Good luck with that, delusional one.:nono:
I used to wrestle and have a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. Bring it on.
They are distinct in the sense of conscious center, not as to being/nature/substance/essence.
You think AMR/trinity is saying there are 3 substances/beings despite everyone yelling at you that there is ONE being/substance/essence, but 3 personal distinctions (not 3 gods, not 3 beings) in the ONE God. It is compound unity, not numeric separation absolutely (again, you think it is 3 pencils instead of 1 family with many members).
They are distinct in one sense, but one in another sense. You still insist, contrary to the doctrine, that they are 3 and 1 in the same sense (your view).
Again, Mormons are the ones that hold your misconceptions of the trinity, NOT Catholics or traditions. You were given creeds that explicitly corrected your wrong view (because you are not the first or last to throw out specious arguments against straw men vs actual belief).
AMR and all trinitarians reject what you reject (3 gods, 3 headed god, 3 beings), so we are on the same page on this point.
Is it true that you still use the NWT perversion?!:madmad:
Huh?! We answer you over and over and defend/proclaim what we believe with evidence. You do not like it, so you claim we cannot answer you?!
I have dealt with JWs and Unitarians for 35 years. If you have the genuine, the counterfeit is obvious.
Jn. 1:1 alone is sufficient to sink your ship. I bet you do not have a clue how to exegete it in light of Greek grammar and context. If you did, you would not accept NWT 'a god' lie. :duh:
Lon
Well-known member
In a nutshell, the debate starts with AMR stating that Jesus is fully God and man. He further stated that if we eliminate what 'not to believe' then we can rightly look after what to believe. This is a good starting place because it then allows AMR and GT to examine what tramples upon scriptural truths and allows the two of them to discuss any particular heresy.
I've looked forward to such a thread because we can use it to point others to when debating. Such means we don't have to reinvent the wheel over and over again. I can just say: Go look here at this debate.
It is unfortunate that GT doesn't understand biblical exegesis. It is important not just to 'post' verses, but to show that one rightly understands them. Exegesis is a 'show your work' demand. It is like turning in all your scratch paper in the higher math classes and turning in your rough drafts with your final draft. Exegesis means to explain why you believe verses, especially if you list many, work they way they do to 'prove' your point. As such, you need to be able to take word-for-word ideas and express why the truth you are purporting is supported from scripture.
When entering a debate, just listing scripture isn't enough, you must explain them and why you think, they support your position, and for a debate like this, usually verse for verse, at least to some degree.
Simply listing scriptures is not debate.
I've looked forward to such a thread because we can use it to point others to when debating. Such means we don't have to reinvent the wheel over and over again. I can just say: Go look here at this debate.
It is unfortunate that GT doesn't understand biblical exegesis. It is important not just to 'post' verses, but to show that one rightly understands them. Exegesis is a 'show your work' demand. It is like turning in all your scratch paper in the higher math classes and turning in your rough drafts with your final draft. Exegesis means to explain why you believe verses, especially if you list many, work they way they do to 'prove' your point. As such, you need to be able to take word-for-word ideas and express why the truth you are purporting is supported from scripture.
When entering a debate, just listing scripture isn't enough, you must explain them and why you think, they support your position, and for a debate like this, usually verse for verse, at least to some degree.
Simply listing scriptures is not debate.
GT is anti-trin and I consider him saved. You are also anti-trin and I consider you unsaved.
The Deity of Christ is the salvific, essential issue (but trinity is very important as AMR argues).
This makes 100s of verses, including triadic formula ones, redundant and nonsensical. You must ignore inspired grammar to even begin to hold to your view.
Rom. 10 is context means to confess Jesus as LORD YHWH, not a mere sir/lord/created being. Son of God also does not mean created, but uncreated like the Father.
If you read the creeds given or the writings of trinitarians, you would know your first statement is NOT what is taught/believed, but explicitly denied. Again, you are refuting and mixing up tritheism (Mormon cult) and triunity (Christian trinitarian view).
If you cannot get this straight, why are you still here? You have zip credibility on this subject.
Lies...you now resort to ad hominem attacks and accuse him of believing things he vehemently denies. Off with your head...Knight should boot you out of the debate and declare AMR the winner.
There is one true God by nature, but many false or so-called gods, not God by nature. Context determines true vs false (I Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 4:8).
We have answered your Arian proof texts over and over. Your view creates a contradiction with Jn. 1:1; Jn. 5:18; Jn. 10:30-33; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 20:28, etc.
Repent, renounce your Arian heresy, and embrace the true Christ, the I AM, Alpha and Omega, Lord God, YHWH.
I am going to haunt you.
The trinity doctrine DOES NOT say there are 3 separate and distinct gods (that is MORMONISM cult!). It says there is ONE GOD (spirit nature) and 3 personal DISTINCTIONS in the one spirit nature, not 3 natures, not 3 gods, not 4 gods, not 4 headed god.
You are misrepresenting trinitarians, creeds, theology books, centuries of church history.
It is called a straw man fallacy (you are attacking something we do not believe either).
I tell Mormons that they are not 3 separate and distinct gods (this is polytheism, not monotheism). I cannot tell trinitarians this about the trinity view because that is NOT what the trinity believes.
You wrongly think triune is tritheism. The former is monotheistic, but the latter is polytheistic. This is the issue between trinitarians/Oneness vs Mormons.
With JWs (who affirm monotheism), the issue is the Deity of Christ (which Oneness and trinity both affirm in addition to monotheism).
I see you have no formal education.
What group do you identify with? What are you hiding. If you are not UPCI, what are you? Surely others on the planet must hold your unique views, guru.
YOU say the trinity says it cannot explain this. Trinitarians say we can and do explain this. I have done it, AMR is doing it, etc.
www.bible.ca/trinity (an imperfect link, but you would rather continue saying things that are not true than be corrected by the evidence that contradicts you). The creeds explicitly deny what you are claiming. Every theology book I have read (I have over 3000 books in my theological library) contradicts you. Google would make you look bad.
Father AND Son. Father WITH Son....NOT Father IS Son (your assumption, not the text).
They are absolutely one, so what applies to the Father applies to the Son in most cases. This does not mean they are the same person in the one God.
My twin sons have much in common. X and Y. X is with Y. X and Y have the same genetics, general appearance, interests, etc. The unity of F, S, HS reflects their mutual love and relationship and common nature, character, attributes. It still does not mean they are the same person (making all the verses that show them distinct in some way redundant and nonsensical to everyone except you with an agenda to retain a false view at all costs).
We cannot be faithful to Scripture without making this distinction. You plug your ears and close your eyes rather than learn to think critically. Using your approach, we would reject a ton of evidence for any given view because it is not worded in a proof text like you want it to be.
- Status