The Trinity

[popsthebuilder]

Mary the mother of God is in heaven right now, the Queen Mother, the mother of the King, Jesus Christ the Lord. She knows Who He is.

I wasn't really talking about that Mrs. Mary.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

And yet, there's not more mass/energy after the explosion than there was before, so the effect is not greater than the cause, even in that circumstance.

Similarly, you cannot mix enough of any kind of chemicals and get love or emotion.

So, as I stated above, because no one was bold enough to answer my question, since you are a person, and the effect cannot be greater than the Cause, therefore your Creator must be personal.

That you effectively attempt to limit the capacity of the eternal, all powerful One Creator GOD to that of a mere man is noted.

Your asinine logic cannot be unseen. Thankfully; it can be repented of.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

"of his own accord" is correctly translated as automatically or of itself or self-moved, acting without intervention. From the Greek automatos.

It is far better to do an accurate study before posting an opinion.

Exactly; negating the presuposition that "him" declares person or people or beasts but can too refer to asexual or inanimate objects.

How would a gate open of its own accord anyway;

Must've had a spirit...

Sorry; just seemed like a fun little topic.

I'm glad we haven't been at each others throats lately.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

That you effectively attempt to limit the capacity of the eternal, all powerful One Creator GOD to that of a mere man is noted.

Your asinine logic cannot be unseen. Thankfully; it can be repented of.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

What do I say that limits God?

Here I am saying that the effect (mankind) cannot be greater than the cause (God).

If anything, I'm limiting man, not God.

If Adam is a person, how much more personal can his Creator be? Or do you suggest that Adam's "person"-ality did not come from God?

 

[Rosenritter]

Your opinions are a poor excuse.

No need for being snide. I'm not offering my opinion for a definition, I am acknowledging that someone's opinion is required for a definition of Trinity. Augustine is well recognized as being a Trinity advocate, so it's not as if his explanation is hostile to your point of view. Why should your opinion be better than Augustine's, for example?

 

[Rosenritter]

Originally Posted by Rosenritter
JudgeRightly, if the cause is the pull of a trigger and the effect is an atomic blast,how would you respond to your own question? I'm confused about what you're trying to accomplish here.

With logic like that, I can see why you refuse to believe the truth.

Right Divider, your posts are becoming more like simple snark without actual content. JRightly asked a rather undefined question, which more than a few people were wondering about what he was talking about. I suspect that the example I gave above does not illustrate what he is trying to say.

So how about this: if you have a legitimate response with content, please bring it out. If you want to intervene, why don't you volunteer the answer? Given JRightly's question, of if an effect is ever greater than a cause, and given my examples of the pull of a trigger and the resulting atomic blast, how do you answer the question?

Thank you.l

 

[popsthebuilder]

The "legal" definition clearly has to do with human interaction. God is far beyond that topic.


Silly example using a non-existent "person" (Superman). [BTW, Clark Kent is a disguise.... Superman is the 'real guy' in that story].


Your opinions are very poor in my opinion, so I don't really care if you think that it's not "good proof".


Different CONTEXT.


Your blindness will persist until you believe the truth.

A*persona*(plural personae or personas), in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word is derived from*Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask.

Norther fullness of GOD; suitable for Jesus inbred flesh only, and even then; not appropriate for such a perfect person, so filled with the Holy Spirit.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

And yet, there's not more mass/energy after the explosion than there was before, so the effect is not greater than the cause, even in that circumstance.

Similarly, you cannot mix enough of any kind of chemicals and get love or emotion.

So, as I stated above, because no one was bold enough to answer my question, since you are a person, and the effect cannot be greater than the Cause, therefore your Creator must be personal.

If your answer is that there is no net difference because of the conservation of matter and energy, then you answered your own question with "The cause is never greater than the effect, or vice versa, they must always be equal because of the conservation of matter and energy..."

Maybe defining the context of your question might enable it to gain an answer. It's not that no one was bold enough to answer your question, it's just that it was a big ??? because you didn't define the context. You had to add more limitations to give the answer you gave above.

The point you were trying to make was that a person requires a creator which is also a person? So by extension, you are trying to prove that we have a personal Creator? OK, granted and given, but that wasn't being debated by anyone on this forum. The Creation vs. Evolution thread has that disagreement though...

 

[Rosenritter]

"of his own accord" is correctly translated as automatically or of itself or self-moved, acting without intervention. From the Greek automatos.

It is far better to do an accurate study before posting an opinion.

Truster, it's funny when you get too serious.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Incorrect, I was trying to build up a point, asking questions to find common ground, and find out where we differ, so that I can show the basis for my beliefs, and then if there are differences between my foundation and yours (everyone here's), I can try to fix those, and then move up from there.

I'm trying to provide you with a good foundation on which to build your beliefs, so that doctrinal issues fall into place more easily.

Otherwise there's no end to debates, as it devolves into vain repetition of the same points over and over.

So far, no one has been willing to test their foundational beliefs.

So, Pops, can the effect be greater than the cause, if not, then if you are a person, does that mean that what caused you, is a person, and back to Adam, was he a person? And if so, was his Creator something less than a person?

If Adam was the effect, is the Uncaused Cause personal, because the effect cannot be greater than the cause?

My creator is GOD alone; also known to me personally as the Christ, the Holy Spirit or Ghost, Lord, GOD, Lord GOD and many other names.

And no; the effect cannot be greater than the cause in theological terms.

Now; show me how my acknowledging that GOD; the One Creator of All existence, is not in any way equal to me; (a lowly existence indeed) proves GOD is a mere person.

I look forward to your response

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

The "legal" definition clearly has to do with human interaction. God is far beyond that topic.

Silly example using a non-existent "person" (Superman). [BTW, Clark Kent is a disguise.... Superman is the 'real guy' in that story].

Your opinions are very poor in my opinion, so I don't really care if you think that it's not "good proof".

Your blindness will persist until you believe the truth.

If you're not up for honest discussion and persuasion, and think it's necessary to insert random unsupported put-me-downs, that hardly indicates that you have special insight on your side.

James 3:13-18 KJV
(13) Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
(14) But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
(15) This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
(16) For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
(17) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
(18) And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

I'll offer a hint: if I tell you that what you are trying to prove needs more sufficient proof, that's an opportunity to provide substantiation, not the time to enter a random self-righteous snipe "Your blindness will persist until you believe the truth." That's posturing, anyone can use that against anyone (and they do on this board). In the common tongue of today, it's also called "smack talk."

So.... less envying and strife? More meekness of wisdom?

 

[God's Truth]

No you didn't.

Jesus being the "son of man" relates to him as a human, Jesus became human when he came to earth as John 1:14 and Phil 2:7 state. Jesus was NOT the "son of man" prior to coming to earth. The verses you showed stating the "son of man" came from heaven is not proof that Jesus was the son of man prior to becoming human anymore than me saying "Paul persecuted Christians", Paul was called Saul at the time he persecuted Christians. My statement does not mean the statement Paul persecuted Christians after being named Paul, its simply me referring to Paul's and his most recent name. Likewise when the bible writer referred to the "son of man" coming from heaven he wasn't claiming Jesus was the "son of Man" prior coming to earth, if he was then it would contradict that Jesus became flesh/human.

I've never denied the Son of God came from heaven.

That same Jesus, who went into heaven, he is the same one who came from heaven.

Jesus was God before coming to earth that is what it means.

You are doing what you are trying to say I am doing.

 

[Rosenritter]

You're denying that Jacob was blessing them. Let's resolve this quick, does the account in Genesis 48 say Jacob blessed the boys by these two citations, yes or no?

“Bring them to me, please, so that I may bless them."

No, but it can be understood that way, but doesn't necessitate it. I can say "the King before whom I walked, The King who has looked after me, 16 The Queen who has been recovering me from all calamity, give me money". No one would read this and think the Queen was the king, they could read it that way if they really wanted to, but they could not deny that the statement could be read in more than one sense.

1. I somehow thought you'd bite at that. Please favor me with understanding the words within their intended context. When I say "Jacob has no power to bless" it is obvious of what I speak. Jacob is asking for God to bless, any blessing from Jacob itself is ineffectual. This is why Jacob makes a prayer to God to grant a blessing.

When Jacob "blesses" he makes a request for God to bless, but when God "blesses" he grants his favor in a specific way and makes it happen.

2. The biblical writing style is such that it uses repetition for the precise reason of making sure that its content is not misunderstood. When Jacob speaks to God, and then he describes God in three different ways, it defeats the whole purpose if you sever the descriptions from each other based on a pre-existing theology.

I will guarantee you that the theological filter you are applied post-dates Genesis. I think most normal people would read that passage and understand that Jacob is praying (and naming) one individual. I never imagined that anyone would split those into one pair and an odd one out.

Isaiah 41:14 KJV
(14) Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

There's another example, above. How many is that? One LORD, one redeemer, and one Holy One of Israel? I thought it was obvious that these are multiple names for the same God. Do you figure these are two, or three, by your reckoning?

Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

So how many would be named in that line above?

1. the LORD the King of Israel is one guy,
his redeemer the LORD of hosts is another? or do we group those two together?
2. "I am the first" is a different guy perhaps?
"and I am the last" is yet another guy chipping in, perhaps an angel this time?
3. "... and beside me there is no God" is God coming back in to finish the chorus?

So is that one, two, three, four, or five people speaking above?

If I were to make a guess, in light of that Jesus uses this name from Isaiah of "the first and the last" for himself in Revelation, you'd need to say that there are at least two people speaking in Isaiah above.

Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

I could find more examples easily enough. It seems to me me that it is your theology that drives your reading, rather than your reading that drives your theology. Normal people would read those phrases and understand that they necessitated equivalence, not diverse persons.

 

[God's Truth]

No one's worshiping Mary.

Show me where I said 'worship'.

 

[God's Truth]

Everyone in heaven can. :idunno:

Everyone in heaven can hear EVERYONE's prayers?

 

[Nihilo]

Show me where I said 'worship'.

The post I was responding to.

Are you drunk?

 

[Nihilo]

Everyone in heaven can hear EVERYONE's prayers?

Yeah, so?

 

[God's Truth]

I don't need to judge when God has already made it clear. All I'm doing is summarizing his word.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

The trinity doctrine is not in the Bible.

 

[God's Truth]

Yeah, so?

Sounds like you think we are supernatural?

 

[God's Truth]

The post I was responding to.

Are you drunk?

Show me where I said 'worship'.