keypurr
Well-known member
It makes perfect sense that you would not understand it.
I was a Trin believer till I saw the errors in it.
Why do you not see the truth?
It makes perfect sense that you would not understand it.
I was a Trin believer till I saw the errors in it.
Why do you not see the truth?
Actually, it does...
Gen 1.26 - 27
And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created (bara) the man in His own image; in the image of God He created (bara)him. He created (bara) them male and female.
This Gen 1 passage informs the reader that our Creator God is plural, via the usage of ‘us’ and ‘our’…repeated three times.
Immediately after this declaration, the creative verb ‘bara’(used only by God) is utilized in three successive acts of creation, when once should have sufficed. Another clear indicator of The Triune Creator.
I believe that I have stated that I believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets. I don't claim a creed.Not sure if someone has asked. Have you given a brief doctrinal statement as yet? Mormon? Trinitarian with reservation? Modalist? Unit-arian or some variance? Thanks.
I have already explained it to you in a way that even a child understands.
the Holy Spirit cannot help you for He only works within the confines of the finished legal work of the Cross of Calvary for Christ
'Christ/Christos/mashiyach' means 'anointed'.
Yes you have, over and over. But I'm not asking you to explain it to me, I know what you believe, And I keep saying I believe in the blood, but not as you do! I've been asking you to show me where in the Bible it says this, but you haven't! Where is the scripture that says what you have been saying below?
Or that you have to have faith in the death of Jesus on the cross be saved?
To me, it says in the Bible that we are saved by the grace of God through faith. And that internal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent!
And I have complete faith in Jesus Christ and the father. And I know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Yet you tell me I've got no hope unless i believe as you do?
Can you back it up with scripture, that i won't be saved unless i believe in the death of Jesus on the cross, or that the Holy Spirit cannot help me for he only works within the confines of the finished legal work of the Cross of Calvary for Christ. Written like that, I already believe in the verses that speak about the blood, so I don't need read them all again, I'm not talking about the blood but being saved or receiving the holy spirit by believing and having faith in the death of Jesus on the cross. Thanks
Do you know why Satan accuses?
I was a Trin believer till I saw the errors in it.
You've gone from truth to error. Don't blame me.I was a Trin believer till I saw the errors in it.
Why do you not see the truth?
And this from someone that believes that the Lamb of God is someone other than the Son of God. Okay.I believe that I have stated that I believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets. I don't claim a creed.
I know little about Mormonism other than it has some overlap with Masonry and Magic.
I had thought until recently (until this last couple weeks) that Trinitarianism was just a fuzzy sometimes three but really One view, a type of cognitive dissonance, but as everyone is arguing here I now see it's really a full blown unapologetic polytheism.
I had one time that I spent a couple weeks just to review my view on this subject by scripture. I had previously had a polytheistic view, like the Trinity folks here express, excepting I believed in two Gods called God, rather than three. I considered that I could be wrong and tried to start from scratch, wanted to give this "Trinity" idea a fair shot. But first I tossed out all preconception (or tried to) and decided to prove whether Jesus was God.
Jesus did turn out to be God. But I also proved more than I intended, because as I read enough scripture Jesus also is revealed to be the same God as appears everywhere else in scripture.
I spent some time with 1 John 5:7 whereas previously I had counted it as a forgery. It finally made sense when I started to read it it was actually written, not as it is typically misquoted. Everything finally clicked into place without loose ends and I wrote to my Trinitarian friend to tell him that I finally understood Trinity and it had built itself up from scripture only.
After listening to me my friend told me that what I had described was not actually Trinity but called Modalism. I tried to look up what that was but mainly just found people condemning it as heresy without being able to say what was wrong with it. Read Tertullian's rant against Praxaes and realized that Tertullian sounded like an illogical raging man and that even from the hostile description given Praxaes sounded to be in agreement with scripture. Wish I had been able to see what Praxaes had written but we cannot. I would even say it is extremely likely that Tertullian misrepresented his opponent.
I did discuss the nature of Christ with a Biblical Unitarian friend. He had debated with Trinitarians before and they had not been able to prove in his mind that Jesus was God. We spent about four months with massive mails back and forth until he admitted that he had seen persuaded two months before. He said that his conclusion was that "biblical unitarianism isn't very biblical."
As for my statement, I am content to believe what the Bible says. I will not profess a manmade creed to evade persecution. That would be akin to idolatry.
No, actually. You have been falsely saying that about me that since you did not wish to present a legitimate argument. That technique is also called "the Straw Man." I didn't believe anyone else was confused by what you said so I didn't bother confronting that directly. If I stopped every wild thing you said I would never have time to reply on a cell phone thumb tap interface.And this from someone that believes that the Lamb of God is someone other than the Son of God. Okay.
With that much confusion, you're in no position to "judge" the doctrines of God.
Must you actually move to outright lies? I have made NO such false accusations about you, but have consistently QUOTED what you said to make sure that it is clear what you said.No, actually. You have been falsely saying that about me that since you did not wish to present a legitimate argument. That technique is also called "the Straw Man." I didn't believe anyone else was confused by what you said so I didn't bother confronting that directly. If I stopped every wild thing you said I would never have time to reply on a cell phone thumb tap interface.
But let us judge your condemnation. I was able to prove the divinity of Christ by scripture to someone who did not believe that before. You would not have been able to do so with the flawed arguments and abusive technique you demonstrate. Shall we judge our understanding by its fruits?
So you made the claim, repeatedly, that these were separate INDIVIDUALS when they clearly are NOT.The only way that God could be "three persons" is if you have a different definition of person. For this I would have to ask (for perhaps I might want to agree with you) what you use to decide the definition of person? I can't find it in the bible, so I have to ask you. Perhaps I might agree with your three persons and add even more besides:
1. The Father
2. The Son of God
3. The Holy Ghost
4. The Lamb of God
5. The Lion of Judah
6. The LORD our Righteousness
7. Melchizedek, the priest of the most High,
8. Alpha and Omega, first and the last, beginning and the end
9. I AM
I would affirm that each and every one of those persons is indeed God and fully God as God is God. That seems pretty simple to me. If we are defining person on our own terms, I see at least eight persons so far and I'm not yet done counting. Up to nine now. That's three times better than any Trinity.
Jesus' Spirit is the Holy Spirit, which is God's Spirit, and he was anointed with the Holy Spirit with power. That means the power of God.
Christ means God, and so does anointed.
Must you actually move to outright lies? I have made NO such false accusations about you, but have consistently QUOTED what you said to make sure that it is clear what you said.
Your second paragraph is completely laughable.
So you made the claim, repeatedly, that these were separate INDIVIDUALS when they clearly are NOT.
Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah and the LORD our Righteousness (He is also the Alpha and Omega and I AM, but let's deal with those separately).
Why do you continue to try to make THOSE INDIVIDUAL PERSONS when they are clearly NOT (referring to Lamb, Lion and LoR).
Seriously, is it hard for you to understand something that is this simple?
It appears that you cannot tell the difference between a NAME/TITLE and the PERSON given that NAME/TITLE.
No.King Saul was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King Saul GOD?
2Sa 1:16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.
2Sa 1:17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:
King David was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King David GOD?
2Sa 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
Cyrus King of Persia was the LORD's Messiah.
Was King Cyrus GOD?
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
Nope, I left the darkness and went into the light. I only answer for my faults, I blame no one for my destiny.You've gone from truth to error. Don't blame me.
By nature a person IS an individual. If you don't know what a person is, then you should not have replied in the first place.No, you are creating false arguments for me. That's called a "Straw Man" attack. Considering that you have also judged me as a "Oneness Pentacostal" your accusation is completely insincere and contradictory. Yes, even an outright lie. I have been completely consistent in saying that we have One God, whom we called Jesus.
When I played along and provided a list of "persons" I never said those persons were different individuals. I said that if we were to suppose that God was multiple "persons" then here's ten to get started. I didn't include God in the Garden of Eden, God as he spoke to Moses face to face as one would a friend, or God that wrestled with Jacob and then asked Jacob "Why do you ask my name?" so you may add those to your list as well.
Please note that I said that these might be persons, I did not say individuals. If I had said those were individuals (as you claim God consists of) then that would indeed be polytheism.
I have already asked if you could provide a biblical definition for person, which you declined. You refuse to accept the biblical definition of person with regards to God, so where do we go from here? You have no latitude to declare that any else's definition of "person" is incorrect.
Realize that laymen will fall into the tritheism category at times, but the Trinitarian view is not polytheism traditionally/historically.I had thought until recently (until this last couple weeks) that Trinitarianism was just a fuzzy sometimes three but really One view, a type of cognitive dissonance, but as everyone is arguing here I now see it's really a full blown unapologetic polytheism.
Some of the modality of the triune view seems lost this century. While I classically/traditionally embrace the Trinitarian view, I prefer to use 'triune' as it expresses more clearly, I think, what you are getting at here.I had one time that I spent a couple weeks just to review my view on this subject by scripture. I had previously had a polytheistic view, like the Trinity folks here express, excepting I believed in two Gods called God, rather than three. I considered that I could be wrong and tried to start from scratch, wanted to give this "Trinity" idea a fair shot. But first I tossed out all preconception (or tried to) and decided to prove whether Jesus was God.
Jesus did turn out to be God. But I also proved more than I intended, because as I read enough scripture Jesus also is revealed to be the same God as appears everywhere else in scripture.
I spent some time with 1 John 5:7 whereas previously I had counted it as a forgery. It finally made sense when I started to read it it was actually written, not as it is typically misquoted. Everything finally clicked into place without loose ends and I wrote to my Trinitarian friend to tell him that I finally understood Trinity and it had built itself up from scripture only.
After listening to me my friend told me that what I had described was not actually Trinity but called Modalism. I tried to look up what that was but mainly just found people condemning it as heresy without being able to say what was wrong with it. Read Tertullian's rant against Praxaes and realized that Tertullian sounded like an illogical raging man and that even from the hostile description given Praxaes sounded to be in agreement with scripture. Wish I had been able to see what Praxaes had written but we cannot. I would even say it is extremely likely that Tertullian misrepresented his opponent.
They are all an attempt to reconcile scripture but I believe we are served better, not worse, to look to the creeds, simply because there is a tried/true history of debate and discussion of the problems that produced the creeds. For me, it is better to discuss creeds because many men, rather than one or two, worked from their own bible readings, together, and produced what they believed scriptures necessarily had to say about subjects. I don't agree with every precept of every creed, but I believe they are genuinely a good place to start instead of reinventing the wheel. There are scriptural directives, for instance, to listen and learn from our elders. I think reading them more than just a good idea (my two cents and philosophy on the matter).I did discuss the nature of Christ with a Biblical Unitarian friend. He had debated with Trinitarians before and they had not been able to prove in his mind that Jesus was God. We spent about four months with massive mails back and forth until he admitted that he had seen persuaded two months before. He said that his conclusion was that "biblical unitarianism isn't very biblical."
Theology is such a large area of study, that short-cuts, even if problematic to our own particular understandings, are good ways to provide another a grasp of where another is coming from. You would know a bit about me if I told you, for instance, that I was a Calvinist. A lot of people, after hearing that, have told me I'm not very Calvinistic, but it is a good place to get a general grasp of where I'm coming from. I certainly disagree on points with other Calvinists, but it at least gives one a place to start hanging ideas about me and getting a handle from where I am coming from. After that, it is merely clarity of where I might differ so you don't have to guess as much where I'm coming from but from where you'd think I diverge or compare it to one's own understanding of Calvinism. I don't seem to really fit the mold in some folk's expectation of what a Calvinist should look like, but for me, it is the doctrine I see best suited to my understanding of scripture.As for my statement, I am content to believe what the Bible says. I will not profess a manmade creed to evade persecution. That would be akin to idolatry.
I have studied your "thought" enough to know that it's false.Nope, I left the darkness and went into the light. I only answer for my faults, I blame no one for my destiny.
I do wish folks would at least study my thought while I am still here.