Neither do I bonehead.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Neither do I bonehead.
Wilful amnesia?
Trinitarians do indeed believe that the Father is the only one true God.
Bright Raven
Of course!
They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct Persons; yet, they are all the one God. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.
You are the one with Amnesia. I think you have repeated this same thing about five or six times. Onset of Alzheimer's? Yep for the fifth or sixth time that is what I said. And the Father is the One True God!
There is one eternal triune God by nature/substance/essence. There are not 3 gods which would be tritheism (vs triune=compound unity)=pagan polytheism.
You forgot the word "only".
Take a look:
Wilful amnesia.
:thumb:
Upppsss!!!!
Don’t you say that there are two more Gods?
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
Can you add to three, godrulz?
How many Gods you have?
So what was unbiblical in 357 became politically correct.
Do you know when that happened, godrulz?
Hmmmm!!!!
godrulz is coming up with his baloney again.
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
You quote one sentence, but ignore the rest of the creed that clarifies how God is one, yet plural. It supports strict monotheism (ONE God) and denies 3 gods.
You do the same proof texting with Scripture showing your lack of credibility.
You quote one sentence, but ignore the rest of the creed that clarifies how God is one, yet plural. It supports strict monotheism (ONE God) and denies 3 gods.
You do the same proof texting with Scripture showing your lack of credibility.
So you are unaware how the unbiblical "homoousios and homoiousios " of Third Council of Sirmium 357 became politically correct in The First Council of Constantinople 381.
Hmmmm!!!!
It really clarifies how one God became three Gods yet plural.
It clarifies how 1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God.
Bravo godrulz.
I promote you to grade 2.
Really?
Didn't you see this before?
So you deny your founding creed, don't you godrulz?
Reallyy?
See here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84770
jerzy is a dual person in one
She has a body of flesh and bones and a soul, in inner man, the hidden man of the heart.
How can jerzy be two distinct persons yet remain one?
When somebody is saved their spirit which is dead, slain in trespasses and sins comes ALIVE, they are born again.
They become threefold beings.
She has a body of flesh and bones and a soul, in inner man, the hidden man of the heart.
How can jerzy be two distinct persons yet remain one?
When somebody is saved their spirit which is dead, slain in trespasses and sins comes ALIVE, they are born again.
They become threefold beings.
You do not have a soul?
I had begun to wonder....I KNOW you do not have the Spirit.
I had begun to wonder....I KNOW you do not have the Spirit.
Lon
Well-known member
Short to the point from Grosnick Marowbe
Short to the point from Grosnick Marowbe
How can both of these be true? Because God says so. :up:
Short to the point from Grosnick Marowbe
"Was with" And "Was"
How can both of these be true? Because God says so. :up:
Wile E. Coyote
New member
oatmeal
Well-known member
Problem is, trins refuse to let scripture be and let it explain itself.
God is all about himself in words, and in other ways.
hence, the use of the word, "word" in John 1
If you would let logos be what it is, you would reject your trinity.
You would realize that Jesus is not God the son , but the son of God.
That the Father and the Son are neither co-equal nor co-eternal
oatmeal
Wile E. Coyote
New member
The problem is that YOU don't let scripture be and let it explain itself. The phrase "and the Word" was God" explains the preceding phrase "and the Word was with God." You explain it contrary to its obvious meaning. You say, "and the Word was independent from God."
If the Word "was God," then the expression "and the Word was with God" cannot mean "independent from."
Line upon line Oatmush!
oatmeal
Well-known member
So now you are going to tell God what God means by what He chose to say?
You arrogant ***
You need to learn to accept the evidence of scripture, instead of limiting yourself to your tiny theology.
oatmeal
Lon
Well-known member
:sigh: you have your own thread,
No, you are arrogant. You and a few others, quite alone, have taken upon yourselves to try and correct the body without the credentials, without the respect earned, without the authority of Jesus. He never came to you and said, "please correct my church, they missed a point." No, you took it completely upon yourself, by your own bootstraps, without any authorization by our God whatsoever. None, nadda. Nix.
oldhermit
Member
Oatmeal, I beat you to a pulp on the question of John 1:1 on another thread. You never answered a single argument. You simply do not know when to quit. You are too proud and too stuborn to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong on this matter. The weight of evidence from scripture is overwhelmingly against you yet, you continue to demonstrate just how foolish one person can be.
I am only sharing how I see things.
It is you who is doing all the jumping up and down like the pharisee.
You have never learnt to fellowship with people who did not go through the sausage machine you did.
Gods word is the authority and I am free to share it.
What authority do you have?
Zilch.
LA