The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

I could care less what "they" say. You seem to freely accuse by a false "guilt by association" tactic. Instead of trying to use the "broad brush" on me (really more like a paint roller), why don't you limit your accusations against me to things that I actually post?

You are making the same mistake all over again. Go back and look at that post, did I accuse you of anything? I will point out that you are rather hypersensitive, but that's more of an observation than an accusation.

Once again, I don't associate myself with James White and could care less what HE says or what anyone says about what HE says.

Just to CLARIFY, I completely disagree with his absolutely horrible explanation that you show here (if he really does say that, as I have no desire to verify it). There is NOT "one cat being", but there is one cat KIND. All cats are of the same cat KIND, they are NOT all the same cat being. Each ONE is a cat being.

Well you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that James White is NOT THE ultimate definer of this doctrine.

That's a wise distinction to make. However, various people on this thread, I think even including Bright Raven (the thread owner) has said that James White is correct, and another Trinity thread used that poll I posted, of which poll used James White to define "Trinity." If you did not agree with James White you were a heretic.

For the record, I've posted James White with the complete link to that text on his official website at least a couple times on this forum already. Here is is again: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html The fact that the rest of this forum seems OK with that seems like a clear case of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Apparently you cannot agree that a Father is a person and that a Son is a person (and also the Holy Spirit as well). With that problem, I cannot help you.

The issue is not whether these are persons, but whether these are different persons. Again, I will point out that there isn't a biblical measure of "person" to judge by. Why not? Because the Bible never sees fit to define God in a Trinitarian sense. It weaves "Jesus is God" left and right and up and down throughout the whole canon, even with Thomas "My Lord and my God" but no Trinity taught by Christ or the apostles. So even if we were to assume that "Trinity" were correct,

1. Whose definition are we using? Yours or James White or the Popes? Or should we ask Lon? Or myself?
2. It apparently isn't important enough to have written clearly in scripture. God did record what he thought to be important. (1 John 2:23, 1 John 4:15)

1 John 2:23 KJV
(23) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 John 4:15-16 KJV
(15) Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
(16) And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

According to the apostle John, a trinity doctrine is completely unnecessary. He says that if you acknowledge the son, you have everything, and that if you dwell in love, that God will dwell in you.

The Bible describes each of these persons, giving them all of the attributes of person-hood and YET says that they are God (and that there is ONE God).

I will stick with the scripture grounds that they are all persons and that they are the one God.

If I describe an elephant from three different angles, it will have all the attributes of a living animal yet they will still be one Elephant. If I describe God from three different angles, each angle will describe a person and it will still be one God. That doesn't mean three persons to me.

Do you also have a problem with the two natures of Jesus Christ?

Isaiah speaks of the Messiah in terms that are often summarized as a "suffering servant" and a "conquering king." The New Testament calls Jesus the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah (John 1:36, Revelation 5:5). No problem with these two natures.

P.S. If you're obsessed with correcting James White, why don't you write to James White?

Actually, I have. Or at least I spoke with his Alpha and Omega ministries a couple times. Did you know that you can be banned from their chat rooms for quoting Martin Luther, even in the designated chat room for "heretics?" They are afraid you will corrupt the heretics by speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

P.P.S. Are you like GT and believe that Jesus was "the Father with a body"?

I already answered that question for you once this week.

 

[Right Divider]

You are making the same mistake all over again. Go back and look at that post, did I accuse you of anything? I will point out that you are rather hypersensitive, but that's more of an observation than an accusation.

I believe that you've called me a heretic at least once, so am I "hypersensitive" about that?

That's a wise distinction to make. However, various people on this thread, I think even including Bright Raven (the thread owner) has said that James White is correct, and another Trinity thread used that poll I posted, of which poll used James White to define "Trinity." If you did not agree with James White you were a heretic.

That's awesome. I'm a heretic either way.

The issue is not whether these are persons, but whether these are different persons.

Do you even understand WHAT a person is? That's just an amazing statement right there. Two persons are NEVER the same person, unless you live in some sort of parallel universe.

Again, I will point out that there isn't a biblical measure of "person" to judge by. Why not? Because the Bible never sees fit to define God in a Trinitarian sense. It weaves "Jesus is God" left and right and up and down throughout the whole canon, even with Thomas "My Lord and my God" but no Trinity taught by Christ or the apostles. So even if we were to assume that "Trinity" were correct,

1. Whose definition are we using? Yours or James White or the Popes? Or should we ask Lon? Or myself?
2. It apparently isn't important enough to have written clearly in scripture. God did record what he thought to be important. (1 John 2:23, 1 John 4:15)

1 John 2:23 KJV
(23) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Unless you're a non-English speaker, you would understand that "Son.... Father... ALSO" clearly refers to TWO PERSONS.

1 John 4:15-16 KJV
(15) Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
(16) And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Nothing to see here...

If I describe an elephant from three different angles, it will have all the attributes of a living animal yet they will still be one Elephant. If I describe God from three different angles, each angle will describe a person and it will still be one God. That doesn't mean three persons to me.

The Son is not a trunk, the Father is not a tail..... quite frankly, your definitions are just as bad as James White.

A FATHER is a PERSON.... a SON is a PERSON..... etc.

Isaiah speaks of the Messiah in terms that are often summarized as a "suffering servant" and a "conquering king." The New Testament calls Jesus the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah (John 1:36, Revelation 5:5). No problem with these two natures.

Good for you.

Actually, I have. Or at least I spoke with his Alpha and Omega ministries a couple times. Did you know that you can be banned from their chat rooms for quoting Martin Luther, even in the designated chat room for "heretics?" They are afraid you will corrupt the heretics by speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

No and I don't care.

I already answered that question for you once this week.

Great!

 

[CherubRam]

Thank you. Had been a while and I forgot that was one of the finishing touches. If God will not give his name and glory to another, but Jesus has that name and that glory, then what does that make Jesus?

Isa 48:11-13 KJV
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
(13) Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Rev 2:8 KJV
(8) And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Joh 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 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.

Jesus did claim the names and glory of God. If he was not God, he would have been a blasphemer, and if he was a blasphemer, he would not have been raised and received in glory. Therefore, because he was raised, he was our God. If you accept the scripture, this is the inevitable result.

First and the Last is a title that belongs to the Father only. The Old testaments says that it was Yahwah who alone created. Trinitarianism is based upon corrupted text.

 

[Bright Raven]

First and the Last is a title that belongs to the Father only. The Old testaments says that it was Yahwah who alone created. Trinitarianism is based upon corrupted text.

Wrong, It is Jesus. See Revelation 1 :17-18

Revelation 1:17-18 Amplified Bible (AMP)

17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. And He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last [absolute Deity, the Son of God], 18 and the Ever-living One [living in and beyond all time and space]. I died, but see, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of [absolute control and victory over] death and of Hades (the realm of the dead).

 

[Rosenritter]

First and the Last is a title that belongs to the Father only. The Old testaments says that it was Yahwah who alone created. Trinitarianism is based upon corrupted text.

The book of Revelation uses "first and the last" as the name and title for Jesus four times, and the gospels also says that Jesus created all things. That would make Jesus effectively whom you call YHWH. God has used different names at different times. To Abraham he was known as "I AM", he was known as Jehovah at the burning bush, and he called himself Jesus in the days of John the Baptist.

He also identified (prophesied) his name as Jesus back in the days of Moses as well. It's the type of thing you can miss if you're reading quickly.

 

[Rosenritter]

I believe that you've called me a heretic at least once, so am I "hypersensitive" about that? That's awesome. I'm a heretic either way.

Yes, you are hypersensitive about that, but now you're acting hypocritical as well.

1. You had no qualms about calling other people heretics on this same thread in that very same day.
2. You yourself provided the definition of heretic (when asked) and it was your definition that identified yourself as a heretic.
3. I gave you the option of how to remove yourself from the "heretic" category if you were willing to adjust your own definition.
4. The "judged according to the same measure that you judge" is a completely biblical standard.

Luke 6:37-38 KJV
(37) Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
(38) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

So here are possible solutions:

1. Stop calling others heretics, or
2. Adjust your definition of heretic to where you at least do not include yourself, or
3. Admit that some of God's most loved saints were declared "heretics" (including Paul, Martin Luther, William Tyndale) and don't put so much stock in the labels of others.

Acts 24:14 KJV
(14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

 

[Rosenritter]

Do you even understand WHAT a person is? That's just an amazing statement right there. Two persons are NEVER the same person, unless you live in some sort of parallel universe.

Unless you're a non-English speaker, you would understand that "Son.... Father... ALSO" clearly refers to TWO PERSONS.

The Son is not a trunk, the Father is not a tail..... quite frankly, your definitions are just as bad as James White.

A FATHER is a PERSON.... a SON is a PERSON..... etc.

If you would you care to define "person" for us, perhaps we could proceed from there on your grounds. But differing from James White, I gave an analogy, not a definition. I am not calling others who do not understand my analogy heretics, and the analogy is still valid. Here, I'll show you how easy it is, and provide another.

A system administrator identifies a person.
A user identifies a person.
A system administrator has a relationship to users, grants them access and permissions, and so forth.
On my computer system (a universe of types) I am the system administrator.
On this same computer system, I am also a user.
The system administrator is a person, the user is a person, and although some people may be confused by this I am most accurately described as a single person.

Please don't bother giving more one-liner "Wrong" replies. If you think my analogy is invalid or has flaws, show me from scripture. I already admit that it isn't a perfect analogy so I wouldn't be offended.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, you are hypersensitive about that, but now you're acting hypocritical as well.

1. You had no qualms about calling other people heretics on this same thread in that very same day.

keypurr is a heretic, so I STAND on that CORRECT judgment.

2. You yourself provided the definition of heretic (when asked) and it was your definition that identified yourself as a heretic.

That is completely fabricated by YOU.

3. I gave you the option of how to remove yourself from the "heretic" category if you were willing to adjust your own definition.

How very kind of you.

4. The "judged according to the same measure that you judge" is a completely biblical standard.

Again we agree. How about that!

Luke 6:37-38 KJV
(37) Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
(38) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

I'm fine with that. I have correctly judged and am in no danger.

So here are possible solutions:

1. Stop calling others heretics, or

keypurr is a heretic. Thank you very much.

2. Adjust your definition of heretic to where you at least do not include yourself, or

I have no need to adjust my correct understanding, thank you very much.

3. Admit that some of God's most loved saints were declared "heretics" (including Paul, Martin Luther, William Tyndale) and don't put so much stock in the labels of others.

That one of the more crazy things that you've posted.

Acts 24:14 KJV
(14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

I'm with Paul!

The FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT are the eternal GOD. See the SON in there? Do you disagree with this?

Matt 28:19-20 (AKJV/PCE)​

(28:19) ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. ​

 

[Right Divider]

If you would you care to define "person" for us, perhaps we could proceed from there on your grounds. But differing from James White, I gave an analogy, not a definition. I am not calling others who do not understand my analogy heretics, and the analogy is still valid. Here, I'll show you how easy it is, and provide another.

A system administrator identifies a person.
A user identifies a person.
A system administrator has a relationship to users, grants them access and permissions, and so forth.
On my computer system (a universe of types) I am the system administrator.
On this same computer system, I am also a user.
The system administrator is a person, the user is a person, and although some people may be confused by this I am most accurately described as a single person.

Please don't bother giving more one-liner "Wrong" replies. If you think my analogy is invalid or has flaws, show me from scripture. I already admit that it isn't a perfect analogy so I wouldn't be offended.

ONCE AGAIN you are confusing TITLES with PERSONS.

Why is this so hard for you?

Do you really think that, if you are a user and a system administrator, that you are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE?

NAMES and TITLES are given TO PEOPLE. A single PERSON can, most certainly, have more than ONE TITLE or NAME.

 

[Rosenritter]

ONCE AGAIN you are confusing TITLES with PERSONS.

Why is this so hard for you?

Do you really think that, if you are a user and a system administrator, that you are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE?

NAMES and TITLES are given TO PEOPLE. A single PERSON can, most certainly, have more than ONE TITLE or NAME.

Show me where the Bible calls God two or more persons and I shall agree. In the meantime all you are doing is trumpeting your interpretation as superior to gospel.

 

[Bright Raven]

Show me where the Bible calls God two or more persons and I shall agree. In the meantime all you are doing is trumpeting your interpretation as superior to gospel.

Matthew 28:19-20 Amplified Bible (AMP)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [help the people to learn of Me, believe in Me, and obey My words], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always [remaining with you perpetually—regardless of circumstance, and on every occasion], even to the end of the age.”

 

[Right Divider]

Show me where the Bible calls God two or more persons and I shall agree. In the meantime all you are doing is trumpeting your interpretation as superior to gospel.

SUPERIOR TO GOSPEL? Where do you get that? What other lies are you going to try to pin om me?

 

[Right Divider]

Ok Rosenritter, I think that I finally see what your problem is.

Even those I am both a father and a son in ONE PERSON. God does not say that about Himself.

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 makes CLEAR that this is NOT how HE refers to the Father and Himself.

 

[keypurr]

You didn't notice that both were God?

Did you notice that the O God has a God?

I bet you overlooked it. That proves That the O God is not the real true God for he has a God.

 

[keypurr]

So you ignore verse 18 to get to verse 19?

I do not ignore any verse, you do.

 

[keypurr]

And each and every one of those is trying to tell you that Jesus is God, but you don't believe it.

Nope it don't. Do you see the word IMAGE? Every IMAGE is a creation.
God is not a creation, he is the creator.
Ponder on that for awhile.

 

[keypurr]

Awesome verses, keyurr, showing that Christ Jesus is God.

Nope, God is not an IMAGE of himself. Sorry, Proof that Christ is not God for he has a God.

 

[keypurr]

The verse doesn't say that Christ is second but that He in all the glory and majesty of God with God before the world began

Think my friend, If God created all through his son, who else would be in second place?

 

[marke]

Nope, God is not an IMAGE of himself. Sorry, Proof that Christ is not God for he has a God.

The Bible never says Jesus worshipped God the Father. That would amount to worshipping Himself and there is something that does not seem right about that.

 

[Rosenritter]

Matthew 28:19-20 Amplified Bible (AMP)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [help the people to learn of Me, believe in Me, and obey My words], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always [remaining with you perpetually—regardless of circumstance, and on every occasion], even to the end of the age.”

All those forms of address are for the same God, the same person. I don't see any mention of "three persons" there. If you want to see how the apostles interpreted that command, they baptized in the name of the Lord or the name of Jesus. No trinitarian formula invoked.