The Trinity

[lifeisgood]

And here's Paul, 1 Corinthians2

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,.even.the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY!

Paul is saying that it was wrong to crucify Jesus!

Paul is talking about their ignorance being a WILLFUL ignorance, which was their judgment for rejecting Christ [Acts 3:17; 13:27]. Had they had the desire to know; they would not have entered in cahoot with Satan to crucify the Lord of Glory.

They REJECTED the Lord of Glory just like many do presently trying to bring the work of their own hands which have already been rejected.

 

[lifeisgood]

And Stephen, Acts 7

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:.Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. (Ref: what Stephen says here, coincides with the parable of the wicked vinyard servants)

And that law (as spoken of by Stephen) was THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

Peter and others, Acts 5

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

That doesn't sound like Peter (or any of the rest) are glorifying the crucifixion of Jesus, it was a sin before God to kill him!

They were not the ones who were supposed to send Him to the Cross; they were the ones who were supposed to accept what all the prophets told them would happen — the Redeemer is coming.

God's Redeemer came and they did not like Him or what He did because He did not fit their desire of their Redeemer. They rejected God’s Redeemer. Just like many do presently.

 

[lifeisgood]

The cross that Jesus bore is the cross that he tells us that we must bare when we follow him. He was murdered on the wooden cross. And we don't have to be crucified on a wooden cross when we have to bare ours!

That is you providing your own way of Salvation and rejecting God’s prescribed order of victory, which is Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary.

 

[lifeisgood]

Jesus came into this flesh and bore his cross to bring bare witness to the truth, and through his life we are saved. God a God of life, and the only death he wants is the death of our sinful flesh, Jesus said that the work that God has given him to do was finished, before he went on the cross.

Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

We are converted once we are walking in the spirit, born anew, and obeying God. Denying our flesh, baring our cross and truly following Jesus. If we do this, then our flesh should be dying, and our sins going, and we should be producing the fruits of the spirit and becoming more innocent like little children, having pure clean hearts, and wanting to be close to our father heaven.

To say that were saved even if we continue wilfully sinning isn't of God. OSAS gives a false assurance and we are to stop wilfully sinning and obey God. To sin, when we know it's wrong before God, is to turn from him and deny him and to crucify the lord afresh, and put him to an open shame.

All can be done only through Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary. There is no other way of Salvation, for no other way is needed.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we are saved by Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ incarnation, Jesus’ many incredible miracles, Jesus’ many healings, etc.

We are saved alone and exclusively by what Christ Jesus did at the Cross of Calvary.

Ever noticed that it was when HE DIED that the veil in the Temple was rent?

Now, you can accept Him and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary or you can reject Him and His finished work and present the works of your own hands which have already been rejected.

One's eternal destination is at stake here. You get Jesus the Christ and His mission wrong, it matters not what else you get right. You got Jesus wrong and His mission wrong.

The decision God has left it up to you.

 

[Right Divider]

If you mean "these three are one" then you have no disagreement with her. But Trinity proponents almost always say "three in one" in speech and writing. There is a difference.

Three in one is plurality.
Three are one is singularity.

That is why she uses one phrase and you use the other, and that seems to be the source of your disagreement.

I explained what I meant (that the three PERSONS are the one GOD) and YET you still doubt my word.

She does NOT believe that there are three. She thinks that Jesus was "the Father with a body". Therefore, she is NOT a believer in the God of the Bible.

Did not Jesus say that one cannot do good works in his name and speak evil of him, forbid them not? Do you really want to insist on sowing discord among brethren that acknowledge Jesus as LORD and God?

I will continue to affirm the Bible against her sort of heresy.

If I were to look at this conversation objectively I would say that the Trinity doctrine itself is the doctrine causing discord. It is being held as more holy than what it supposedly was supposed to protect.

Thanks, now your true colors are beginning to show.

And if that statement makes you even more angry I think my point is proved. The man made doctrine has assumed a higher status than scripture. Shall I rest my case?

I can clearly see why you are defending a heretic, being one yourself.

LOL, rest your case.... LOL

I wonder how you guys can believe a lie and "defend" it when it is clearly illogical.

John 17:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
​

Jesus was WITH the Father LONG before the BODY (physical) existed.

 

[Rosenritter]

All can be done only through Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary. There is no other way of Salvation, for no other way is needed.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we are saved by Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ incarnation, Jesus’ many incredible miracles, Jesus’ many healings, etc.

We are saved alone and exclusively by what Christ Jesus did at the Cross of Calvary.

Ever noticed that it was when HE DIED that the veil in the Temple was rent?

Now, you can accept Him and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary or you can reject Him and His finished work and present the works of your own hands which have already been rejected.

One's eternal destination is at stake here. You get Jesus the Christ and His mission wrong, it matters not what else you get right. You got Jesus wrong and His mission wrong.

The decision God has left it up to you.

Actually, doesn't it say we are saved by grace? And isn't grace an unmerited pardon? But if we read our parables grace can be given and then revoked. The work on the cross was finished but we are saved by grace which requires repentance for each and every one of us on a personal level.

I don't think you have much disagreement with him with regards to the roles of Christ in the forgiveness of sins, rather I think his objection may have been "once saved always saved..."

 

[Rosenritter]

I explained what I meant (that the three PERSONS are the one GOD) and YET you still doubt my word.

She does NOT believe that there are three. She thinks that Jesus was "the Father with a body". Therefore, she is NOT a believer in the God of the Bible.


I will continue to affirm the Bible against her sort of heresy.


Thanks, now your true colors are beginning to show.


I can clearly see why you are defending a heretic, being one yourself.

LOL, rest your case.... LOL

I wonder how you guys can believe a lie and "defend" it when it is clearly illogical.

John 17:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
​

Jesus was WITH the Father LONG before the BODY (physical) existed.

If by true colors you mean that I will insist that actual scripture take precedence over man-made doctrines, that has always been my position. The models made to explain Bible concepts must always be kept subject to the Bible, never to come before it. Anything else is a type of idolatry.

If you could show in scripture where such a belief is defined as heresy then you might have a point. But she is not "denying the Lord that bought her" but quite the opposite. You are indignant because she hasn't signed on to a man-made creed that didn't exist until several hundred years after Christ.

If you believe her to be in error (or myself or anyone else for that matter) and if you believe the nature of that error to be vital, you should be able to show what you mean clearly, from scripture, without contradiction. And likewise you should also be able to receive conversation in kind.

Curious, you said that she was not "logical." Do you claim that a Trinity is a "logical" solution? Because if I remember correctly the Trinity doctrine itself claims that it cannot be understood or defined by logic but must be simply believed...

 

[daqq]

All can be done only through Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary. There is no other way of Salvation, for no other way is needed.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we are saved by Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ incarnation, Jesus’ many incredible miracles, Jesus’ many healings, etc.

We are saved alone and exclusively by what Christ Jesus did at the Cross of Calvary.

Ever noticed that it was when HE DIED that the veil in the Temple was rent?

Now, you can accept Him and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary or you can reject Him and His finished work and present the works of your own hands which have already been rejected.

One's eternal destination is at stake here. You get Jesus the Christ and His mission wrong, it matters not what else you get right. You got Jesus wrong and His mission wrong.

The decision God has left it up to you.

The author of Hebrews tells you what is meant by the veil having been rent, that is, that the Way is now opened up for you to enter. However, for you to enter requires your own action in doing so; but the Cherubim which are therein are overlaid with hammered pure gold having been tried in the fire, and Yeshua counsels all to purchase from him gold having been tried in the fire. Therefore you have not entered unless you can show me how you yourself have purchased gold tried in the fire from the Master, (and I know you have not because of your doctrines and unwarranted accusations against others).

 

[Right Divider]

If by true colors you mean that I will insist that actual scripture take precedence over man-made doctrines, that has always been my position. The models made to explain Bible concepts must always be kept subject to the Bible, never to come before it. Anything else is a type of idolatry.

Oh boy folks, we got us a live one here!

Yes, I agree about doctrine from the Bible. But I'm sure that you're aware, because you're super smart, that not every doctrine we find in the scripture has a nice, neat name-tag pinned to it. The doctrine of the trinity is just such a doctrine, shown throughout the scipture.

If you could show in scripture where such a belief is defined as heresy then you might have a point. But she is not "denying the Lord that bought her" but quite the opposite. You are indignant because she hasn't signed on to a man-made creed that didn't exist until several hundred years after Christ.

Thanks for that pile of baloney.

If you believe her to be in error (or myself or anyone else for that matter) and if you believe the nature of that error to be vital, you should be able to show what you mean clearly, from scripture, without contradiction. And likewise you should also be able to receive conversation in kind.

I've shown you, but you don't care to see it. She denies the nature of God as show in scripture. That is called heresy and you seem to like it.

Curious, you said that she was not "logical." Do you claim that a Trinity is a "logical" solution? Because if I remember correctly the Trinity doctrine itself claims that it cannot be understood or defined by logic but must be simply believed...

No, I was not talking about the trinity doctrine being logical, but it's implications and ramifications. Was Jesus talking to HIMSELF when He said that He was talking to the Father? Was Jesus wrong when He said that He was WITH the Father before the foundation of the world?

GT claims that the Father and Son are ONE AND THE SAME (her words). She is confusing the PERSONS with their DEITY.

P.S. A Father cannot be a Father without a child; in this case a Son. To claim that the Son is "the Father with a body" is just plain stupid and anti-Biblical.

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh boy folks, we got us a live one here!

Yes, I agree about doctrine from the Bible. But I'm sure that you're aware, because you're super smart, that not every doctrine we find in the scripture has a nice, neat name-tag pinned to it. The doctrine of the trinity is just such a doctrine, shown throughout the scipture.


Thanks for that pile of baloney.


I've shown you, but you don't care to see it. She denies the nature of God as show in scripture. That is called heresy and you seem to like it.


No, I was not talking about the trinity doctrine being logical, but it's implications and ramifications. Was Jesus talking to HIMSELF when He said that He was talking to the Father? Was Jesus wrong when He said that He was WITH the Father before the foundation of the world?

GT claims that the Father and Son are ONE AND THE SAME (her words). She is confusing the PERSONS with their DEITY.

P.S. A Father cannot be a Father without a child; in this case a Son. To claim that the Son is "the Father with a body" is just plain stupid and anti-Biblical.

Thank you Mr. Divider. Perhaps if we try we may be able to discuss this oft emotionally-laden subject with love and civility. I had the experience of discussing the nature of God with someone over a four month period one time, so I am somewhat familiar with the perspectives of multiple sides. As such I think I understand some of what various sides mean here, I will do my best to explain issues as I understand them, but be careful not to be so quick to label someone's understanding of God as "heresy" just because it may differ from your own. If it holds to the important points as outlined in scripture and produces proper fruit, that should be our measure.

First, I'll say up front that I don't buy the "We should accept doctrines that are not in scripture" stance. That's not even a slippery slope, that's sliding down the slope from the start. I've heard the excuse "So what if my doctrine isn't proved in scripture we accept the Trinity and it's not in scripture" excuse a lot. That's not a good sign, we don't want to go that route.

Second, from your "pile of baloney" comment I shall take that to mean that you aren't able to point to a scripture that defines what your criticize as heresy. As such, please withdraw such accusations until such a time as you have authoritative backing from scripture. James White or the Athanasian Creed is not scripture.

Third, you said that you were concerned about the concept of prayer. Yet when Jesus raised Lazarus he said out loud that the Father heard him always. So if Jesus prayed, why did he pray? Don't his next words tell us? It wasn't because he needed God to hear him. I can post the relevant passages if it helps, but I trust that you may recall this simply by reference.

Fourth, neither of you are without explanation for how Jesus could be with with the Father from the foundation of the world. I assume that you perceive Jesus as being a separate person, she perceives him being the same person. At least for that question it works either way.

Fifth, if you are claiming that Jesus is the "child" of the Father then the Trinity doctrine itself declares you as a heretic.

Sixth, if you search the bible for instances of "Son" and "Father" it appears as if this is a distinction that only occurs within the realm of the New Testament. There is a prophetic reference to "Son" in the Psalms "Kiss the son lest he be angry" but the only reference to "Father" assigns that name and title to Christ "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, a mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." You are correct that "Father" only exists in contrast to "Son" in scripture, but is not sufficient to say they are different people. For example, you can be both a "user" and the "system administrator" of a computer system but that does not require different people behind the keyboard.

Seventh, if it interests you, have you ever checked to see how many "persons" are used in reference to God? With the word "person?" The word "person" is only used in the singular, and it says that Jesus is the express image of his (God's) person.

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

That would be person, singular, not "the express representative of their persons" ....

....

My point being is that someone can have sincere biblical reasons to disagree with your interpretation. You may not agree with her description and the words she uses, but the words you have chosen could mark you as a heretic by that same Trinity standard. What I would suggest is to make sure that there is agreement on what scripture mandates:

1) There is One God
2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
3) God was manifest in the flesh, seen of angels, justified by the spirit, received in glory...

The rest is for you to figure out how to understand. Jesus and his apostles didn't see fit to preach a Trinity. Take care not to judge another man's servant, for we shall all be judged by Christ. Salvation is not dependent on understanding each and every mystery, and we can be saved without a perfect understanding of doctrine. What matters above all is our capacity for love, repentance, and forgiveness.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Thank you Mr. Divider. Perhaps if we try we may be able to discuss this oft emotionally-laden subject with love and civility. I had the experience of discussing the nature of God with someone over a four month period one time, so I am somewhat familiar with the perspectives of multiple sides. As such I think I understand some of what various sides mean here, I will do my best to explain issues as I understand them, but be careful not to be so quick to label someone's understanding of God as "heresy" just because it may differ from your own. If it holds to the important points as outlined in scripture and produces proper fruit, that should be our measure.

First, I'll say up front that I don't buy the "We should accept doctrines that are not in scripture" stance. That's not even a slippery slope, that's sliding down the slope from the start. I've heard the excuse "So what if my doctrine isn't proved in scripture we accept the Trinity and it's not in scripture" excuse a lot. That's not a good sign, we don't want to go that route.

Second, from your "pile of baloney" comment I take I shall interpret that you aren't able to show point to a scripture that defines what your criticize as heresy. As such, please withdraw such accusations until such a time as you have authoritative backing from scripture. James White or the Athanasian Creed is not scripture.

Third, you said that you were concerned about the concept of prayer. Yet Jesus when Jesus raised Lazarus he said out loud that the Father heard him always. So if Jesus prayed, why did he pray? Don't his next words tell us? It wasn't because he needed God to hear him. I can post the relevant passages if it helps, but I trust that you may recall this simply by reference.

Fourth, neither of you are without explanation for how Jesus could be with with the Father from the foundation of the world. I assume that you perceive Jesus as being a separate person, she perceives him being the same person. At least for that question it works either way.

Fifth, if you are claiming that Jesus is the "child" of the Father then the Trinity doctrine itself declares you as a heretic.

Sixth, if you search the bible for instances of "Son" and "Father" it appears as if this is a distinction that only occurs within the realm of the New Testament. There is a prophetic reference to "Son" in the Psalms "Kiss the son lest he be angry" but the only reference to "Father" assigns that name and title to Christ "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, a mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." You are correct that "Father" only exists in contrast to "Son" in scripture, but is not sufficient to say they are different people.

Seventh, if it interests you, have you ever checked to see how many "persons" are used in reference to God? With the word "person?" The word "person" is only used in the singular, and it says that Jesus is the express image of his (God's) person.

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

That would be person, singular, not "the express representative of their persons" ....

....

My point being is that someone can have sincere biblical reasons to disagree with your interpretation. You may not agree with her description and the words she uses, but the words you have chosen could mark you as a heretic by that same Trinity standard. What I would suggest is to make sure that there is agreement on what scripture mandates:

1) There is One God
2) In the beginning was the Word, and the was was with God, and the Word was God
3) God was manifest in the flesh, seen of angels, justified by the spirit, received in glory...

The rest is for you to figure out how to understand. Jesus and his apostles didn't see fit to preach a Trinity. Take care not to judge another man's servant, for we shall all be judged by Christ. Salvation is not dependent on understanding each and every mystery, and we can be saved without a perfect understanding of doctrine. What matters above all is our capacity for love, repentance, and forgiveness.

Paul backs you in 1 Cor 13:

If I speak human or angelic languages
but do not have love,
I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy
and understand all mysteries
and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith
so that I can move mountains
but do not have love, I am nothing.


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you Mr. Divider. Perhaps if we try we may be able to discuss this oft emotionally-laden subject with love and civility. I had the experience of discussing the nature of God with someone over a four month period one time, so I am somewhat familiar with the perspectives of multiple sides. As such I think I understand some of what various sides mean here, I will do my best to explain issues as I understand them, but be careful not to be so quick to label someone's understanding of God as "heresy" just because it may differ from your own. If it holds to the important points as outlined in scripture and produces proper fruit, that should be our measure.

First, I'll say up front that I don't buy the "We should accept doctrines that are not in scripture" stance. That's not even a slippery slope, that's sliding down the slope from the start. I've heard the excuse "So what if my doctrine isn't proved in scripture we accept the Trinity and it's not in scripture" excuse a lot. That's not a good sign, we don't want to go that route.

How very disingenuous of you. You continue to MISREPRESENT what I have said. That's called lying.

I accept the doctrine of the trinity because it's what the Bible teaches.

I won't bother to address anything else that you write, since your first point is a LIE.

P.S. I really like your "I know a bunch of stuff" patting yourself on the back. Many of us are quite knowledgeable too and we don't need you telling just how much you "know".

P.P.S. Do you believe that the Son is "the Father with a body"?

 

[marhig]

Your faith has to be in the CORRECT object though — Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary.

Paul suffered untold hardships after he received the risen Lord’s marching orders of what the Gospel was. What was to be preached?

“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified (1 Cor 2:2).

This and this ALONE is the Gospel which will save the sinner, set the captive free, and give the Believer perpetual victory.

There is nothing in the Bible that says we are saved by Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ incarnation, Jesus’ many incredible miracles, Jesus’ many healings, etc.

We are saved alone and exclusively by what Christ Jesus did at the Cross of Calvary.

Now, you can accept Him and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary or you can reject Him and His finished work and present the works of your own hands which have already been rejected.

One's eternal destination is at stake here. You get Jesus the Christ and His mission wrong, it matters not what else you get right. You, marhig, got Jesus wrong and His mission wrong.

The decision God has left it up to you.

There's more to the gospel than Jesus Christ crucified. The gospel brought life, it's having faith in God and it's the whole gospel that is the gospel of salvation. And we and also need those rivers of living water flowing through our hearts

Romans 1

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith

We live by faith, faith in the living God and his holy son Christ Jesus whom he sent. To bare witness to the truth he's the way, the truth and the life and to follow him, we should be living it out, not just hearing but doing.

I was thinking tonight, that Christ is the head, and we are the members of his body the church, a natural body can't live without the blood flowing, and the blood brings oxygen to its members. So does the blood of Christ, his life goes round and through us and we are kept alive by the breath of life which is the holy spirit.

You say that it's not the resurrection that saves, if we haven't risen with Christ we are dead in sin, a natural dead body has no life, neither does a body without the spirit. Without God we are dead, we need this new life of Christ manifesting in our hearts and we by the spirit will be changing to be more like him. We will be decreasing and Christ will be increasing. We can't be being saved without his life resurrected in us because without the spirit of God through Christ Jesus, we are still being tossed to and frow by Satan. We need the strength of the spirit in our hearts to overcome Satan everyday, only God can save us, and without having true faith him, we have no hope. And if we have true faith, then we will listen and obey and we will deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Jesus and we will die to self and and be alive in the spirit by the grace of God.

 

[marhig]

Are you one of those who also reject the finished work on the Cross of Calvary and are presenting the work of your own hands which have already been rejected?

God is ONLY pleased with His Son and what His Son did.

God is ONLY pleased with His Son and what His Son did.

And that's why God wants our flesh dead and his son living through us, because he wants to see the life of his son being lived out in his children

 

[marhig]

And how did he fulfilled that, marhig?

By being obedient to the mission entrusted to Him. What was that mission? To die on the Cross of Calvary so that through His Death on the Cross of Calvary the veil of separation between God and man could be ripped.

Ever noticed that it was when HE DIED that the veil in the Temple was rent?

He was obedient to God through his whole life, not just his death on the cross, he says himself that the the reason he was born and the reason that he came into the world was to bare witness to the truth

What he never said was that the reason he was born and the reason he came into this world was to come to finish his work on calvary's cross to save us.

He came to bare witness to the truth, and also to show us the way and the life, and his way is the only way back to God and he came and overcame Satan, by not living by his own will, and denying Satan right up until his last breath and he won Satan on his own ground and if we hear his voice, then we who are his sheep will follow him.

The Bible says we are saved by his life

Romans 5

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life

Life saves not death, the only death that God wants, is the death to our fleshly lusts and for our sinful heart to be circumcised by the spirit and and for us to be washed clean by the word so that we can be useful vessels

You don't use a dirty vessel to carry water or to bring wine to guests at a wedding feast, you use a clean one that's close at hand.

 

[marhig]

Then you have rejected the only door to Salvation — Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary.

I haven't rejected Jesus Christ at all, I love him from the depths of my heart, and I have complete faith in him.

sorry, I thanked this by accident

 

[marhig]

Paul is talking about their ignorance being a WILLFUL ignorance, which was their judgment for rejecting Christ [Acts 3:17; 13:27]. Had they had the desire to know; they would not have entered in cahoot with Satan to crucify the Lord of Glory.

They REJECTED the Lord of Glory just like many do presently trying to bring the work of their own hands which have already been rejected.

If they were in cahoots with Satan, that means that in the way you believe. Satan in the hearts of those men crucified God.

Not a chance! God wouldn't be put to death by Satan in anyway whatsoever.

They rejected Jesus and through envy murdered him, Jesus said they were doing the work of their father the devil, and that they weren't obeying the laws of Moses.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

God doesn't change and he doesn't lie. He wouldn't go back on his own commandment and have his holy son crucified. Jesus said what sins to you convict me of? He had none, God wants sin put to death not righteousness

He suffered and sacrificed his whole life for God, not just when he went on the cross.

 

[marhig]

That is you providing your own way of Salvation and rejecting God’s prescribed order of victory, which is Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary.

I'm dead without the indwelling spirit, there's no way I can save myself by any of my works. It's the spirit of God that does the works within me, and i believe that I should obey him and that I should lay down my life for God, to bring the love of God and Christ Jesus to others.

I know me, and I know what I'm like without God, and I don't deserve him because I am a sinner lots of ways and i know Christ has saved me, because through the spirit I'm overcoming the flesh. Without him I'd have no hope!

 

[Rosenritter]

The doctrines of the Church are not questionable. They would not be doctrines if they were questionable.

Now that was a classic example of circular logic.

I'll do one better and provide a scriptural example that doctrines can indeed be questionable:

Matthew 15:7-9 KJV
(7) Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
(8) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
(9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Doctrines indeed? Yes. Questioned? Condemned. By none other than God in the flesh.

 

[Rosenritter]

How very disingenuous of you. You continue to MISREPRESENT what I have said. That's called lying.

I accept the doctrine of the trinity because it's what the Bible teaches.

I won't bother to address anything else that you write, since your first point is a LIE.

P.S. I really like your "I know a bunch of stuff" patting yourself on the back. Many of us are quite knowledgeable too and we don't need you telling just how much you "know".

P.P.S. Do you believe that the Son is "the Father with a body"?

I will answer your question, but you must then answer my question. Is that fair?

Do you believe the Son is "the Father with a body?

That's a new phrase for me, so I would consider what passages might reflect on that statement one way or the other.

John 10:29-30 KJV
(29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(30) I and my Father are one.

John 14:7-11 KJV
(7) If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
(8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
(10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
(11) Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Although I think that saying may not be perfectly accurate, I think I understand what is meant and why it would be said. Jesus said that the Father was in him, that he and the Father were one, and if you had seen him you had seen the Father. Yet I don't think it is correct to say that the Father lacked "body" ... so change that to be "The Son is the Father in the flesh" and that starts to seem accurate indeed.

So even though you seemed a bit upset with me, I answered your question. Please answer this question before replying further.

Question: We know that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, but which member of the Trinity was the divine parent? Please bear in mind that according to Trinity definition, the Father is NOT the Son, nor the Son the Spirit, nor the Spirit the Father.

a) Joseph, a man
b) God the Father
c) God the Holy Spirit
d) God the Son

Mat 1:18-20 KJV(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
(19) Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
(20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

John 1:14 KJV
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Heb 1:5-8 KJV
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.