Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Well, it looks like Gods Truth is doing an extremely poor job of defending his position and answering AMR's questions.
ChristNU
New member
Right here is the crux of it, IMHO. How much "bad" doctrine has been developed as the result of hatred of the RCC and all things considered RCC? The Trinity being one of those considered RCC by the uninformed.
I would like to challenge AMR one on one with my simple way of reasoning why Trinity is unbiblical and doctrine of demon.
I would like to start with questions that I don't think any trinity believers can answer biblically.
To tell the truth, I don't believe God's Truth is biblical either because He said Jesus is the Father but he denied this claim later on. He does not seem to think he knows what he is talking about.
He has been inconsistent all alone with many other things and trinity is the same.
blessings.
I would like to start with questions that I don't think any trinity believers can answer biblically.
To tell the truth, I don't believe God's Truth is biblical either because He said Jesus is the Father but he denied this claim later on. He does not seem to think he knows what he is talking about.
He has been inconsistent all alone with many other things and trinity is the same.
blessings.
oatmeal
Well-known member
oatmeal
Well-known member
You said it better than I could.
God's truth, at best, seems to be semi-trinitarian.
Either Jesus Christ is God or he is not.
Jesus Christ is not God, he is the son of God.
Son, as in male offspring, with a beginning. Matthew 1:18
GT seems to be riding the fence
Since Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God himself, any support for a trinity does not exist.
That's a low bar of eloquence.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Why not AMR? (Just curious.)
oatmeal
Well-known member
Truth is truth
You do not believe that God has the power and authority to interject Himself into human history by incarnating Himself as a perfect being to offer us salvation through a sacrifice of Self?
A self that was witnessed by countless persons as risen from the dead and ascended into heaven?
You are saying there are lies in the New Testament and you are calling the witness of the Apostles lies?
What a foolish man you are you are!
He can do it if he wants. I just added so I don't mind anyone take the challenge.
I can do it with anyone.
You are right, I am not eloquent at all. After all English is my second language. I speak broken English.
You don't have be eloquent to be faithful to be Jesus' servant.
blessings.
I commend you Meshak for your use of English. It is a very difficult language and you do a good job!
And, I believe you are a good and faithful servant!
fishrovmen
Active member
Gt, I wonder what Stephen saw at his stoning at the end of Acts chapter 7? What is your understanding of that vision?
godrulz makes good points here.
Scripture was not intended to be a tool for proof-texting to support a particular view. We should all be able to make a Biblical argument for our view, but that looks very different from plucking an isolated verse here or there, completely ignoring the greater context, the original hearer, the original language, the circumstances under which the book or letter was written, etc.
Further, proof-texting without explanation or interpretation proves nothing. If AMR simply answered GT's proof-texts with a few of his own, GT would have to admit that AMR's proof-texts are just as valid on the face of it.
Ignoring thousand of years of church history and those who went before us in the faith is downright foolish. GT's objection to quoting others is tantamount to the tired 'I don't believe in any man's religion'. Lone Ranger Christians often end up believing in, at best, slightly unorthodox doctrines, and at worst, outright heresy. And I guarantee none of us came to our beliefs without being taught by someone along the way.
It's clear to me that the root of the issue here is a difference in interpretive method. An overly literal, wooden literal, approach to Scripture yields confusion and error.
GT, you can't simply cite a few verses and claim victory. There are some truths in Scripture that can't be proof-texted. The doctrines are built carefully by viewing the whole of Scripture and, like the doctrine of the Trinity, many came about in response to serious error.
AMR, well done as usual. Glad it's GT and not me. :chuckle:
I pay careful attention to everything AMR has to say. I would not presume to argue with him. Having said that, I do not always agree but always give careful consideration to his words.
fishrovmen
Active member
Gt, what is your explanation of Acts 7:55 ,where Stephen had a vision? what or who did he see?
I don't post here to 'help' AMR. He doesn't need any help.
However, you could benefit by his help for you.
But........that requires humility.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I generally am reluctant to debate women. I know my limitations well enough to understand that I will fall into sin given my tendency to become impatient and even angered during the heat of discussion. I just do not think God is glorified with the likes of myself in heated discussions with a woman. I mean no offense by this. Your views are the reason I have you on ignore--to avoid falling into more personal sin when I become inflamed when reading your blasphemies related to the Godhead.
I only respond now as your comments were quoted and felt you were owed an explanation.
AMR
- Status