No one has seen God at any time, John?

[Matthias]

But why would Yaweh have a back to be seen?

Why? Yahweh, who is spirit, is corporeal.

 

[Matthias]

It's probably easier resolved using screenshots of those posts.

View attachment 71783

.

Let’s try something @marks. Forget that @ScottA is the one who answered my question. Let’s pretend that I answered my question and that my answer is “Yes”. What do you see in that scenario? Did I say that you reject Christ or did I not?

 

[marks]

Thank you, apparently more clarification is needed (not that I have not publicly done so already elsewhere). @Matthias and I have exhausted many such topics, but this is good!

The Church in general (officially) has indeed rejected Christ in Spirit. But many more than have rejected Christ, are the victims of the "false teachers" to their own destruction, causing many to "believe a lie." Meaning, yes many will weep and many others will gnash there teeth for having taken part. That makes for--not for one group weeping and gnashing because of their destruction--but rather three groups, one bringing destruction upon themselves, one weeping for having their child-like faith victimized, and another sweating their eternal fate.

The official position of the Church has been and continues to be that after Christ throughly explained that He would go to the Father and "soon" send the Holy Spirit, telling all that "must shortly come to pass"; even clarifying that it was He who would "soon" come, saying, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me"--returning--as having first gone to the Father. Which, being men of flesh and blind to the Spirit, not seeing Jesus return beginning "soon" at Pentecost, began to believe and teach "a lie" about His return--not "soon"--but at a future time.

So, no, I consider you and many good Christians and friends--victims.

Thank you for this clarification! This indeed expands but does not change things we've previously discussed.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No. I’m trying to tie you tightly together.

Non-trinitarian and trinitarian- snug as a bug in a rug.

I think you are trying to manipulate to fit your agenda.

 

[marks]

Look at the screenshots.

I've read the thread, and I see what you've been doing. I wasn't born yesterday, perhaps to your surprise?

 

[ScottA]

Thank you for this clarification! This indeed expands but does not change things we've previously discussed.

Much love!

I understand, and sorry I've been on my phone and not able to state things as clearly as I might.

 

[Matthias]

I think you are trying to manipulate to fit your agenda.

I’m not.

When he, a non-trinitarian said it - > no problem.

When I, a non-trinitarian, hypothetically said ir-> problem.

Your bias is showing.

 

[Matthias]

I've read the thread, and I see what you've been doing. I wasn't born yesterday, perhaps to your surprise?

You obviously haven’t seen what I’ve been doing. Thankfully others have and more will.

 

[Matthias]

Thank you for this clarification! This indeed expands but does not change things we've previously discussed.

Much love!

The non-trinitarian mystic is writing against trinitarianism. You deserve what he’s doing to you and the church.

***

You should pay close attention to this @Riven.

 

[marks]

I understand, and sorry I've been on my phone and not able to state things as clearly as I might.

I haven't had any issues with your posts. I think @Matthias is trying to create division among other things.

Much love!

 

[marks]

You obviously haven’t seen what I’ve been doing. Thankfully others have and more will.

Well I think I have.

I’m not.

When he, a non-trinitarian said it - > no problem.

When I, a non-trinitarian, hypothetically said ir-> problem.

Your bias is showing.

You are working hard to make what others say sound differently then they've meant them.

The non-trinitarian mystic is writing against trinitarianism. You deserve what he’s doing to you and the church.

I came on here to reply to your posts. You've spent a lot of time trying to triangulate and deflect. I'm not an idiot. Have a nice evening!

 

[marks]

You deserve

That's for Jesus to determine, not you.

 

[Matthias]

I haven't had any issues with your posts. I think @Matthias is trying to create division among other things.

Much love!

The trinitarian has no problem at all with the non-trinitarian going beyond what is written in scripture and writing against trinitarianism and the church @Riven. Remember that as you mull over becoming a Christian and look for a church to attend.

 

[Matthias]

That's for Jesus to determine, not you.

The Messiah condemns hypocrisy.

 

[Matthias]

Well I think I have.


You are working hard to make what others say sound differently then they've meant them.


I came on here to reply to your posts. You've spent a lot of time trying to triangulate and deflect. I'm not an idiot. Have a nice evening!

The non-trinitarian mystic has you duped.

 

[marks]

The non-trinitarian mystic has you duped.

Does that make you feel good to say that?

The Messiah condemns hypocrisy.

Jesus, God incarnate. Yes, He does. And I wonder what He thinks of those who would usurp His right to judge.

The trinitarian has no problem at all with the non-trinitarian going beyond what is written in scripture and writing against trinitarianism and the church

This is your intended triangulation, and presumption, to push your agenda. You think I don't know what Scott thinks about these things? That we've had other discussions? Or do you even care, so long as you can hope to impress other readers with your words? And get attention away from posts you don't want to deal with?

The fact that I'm not playing along with your games should not be misunderstood as anything other that that. I've been addressing you. You've been wriggling and squirming trying to get the attention onto Scott.

So, enough of the nonsense. Again I bid you good night. And if I don't reply further, try to not misconstrue that as anything other than disinterest.

 

[Matthias]

Does that make you feel good to say that?

Jesus, God incarnate. Yes, He does. And I wonder what He thinks of those who would usurp His right to judge.


This is your intended triangulation, and presumption, to push your agenda. You think I don't know what Scott thinks about these things? Or do you even care, so long as you can hope to impress other readers with your words?

The fact that I'm not playing along with your games should not be misunderstood as anything other that that. I've been addressing you. You've been wriggling and squirming trying to get the attention onto Scott.

So, enough of the nonsense. Again I bid you good night. And if I don't reply further, try to not misconstrue that as anything other than disinterest.

Goonight.

***

@Riven focus your attention particularly on what @ScottA has said then decide for yourself. Don’t let the fact that he isn’t a trinitarian prevent you from seriously considering if what he is saying is true. If you’re persuaded that it’s the truth, believe him.

 

[Riven]

Is this what heaven is gonna be like? Please tell me this isn't it.

 

[dak]

The Church in general (officially) has indeed rejected Christ in Spirit.

I am not even really sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Who is The Church, (in upper case)? What does "in general (officially)" mean? I am being serious: one could actually take that as speaking of the RCC. Lastly, I find it quite difficult to believe that anyone claiming to be a Christian has "rejected Christ in Spirit". Even that phrase makes no sense to me, unless you mean something else by "in Spirit", (capitalized).

But many more than have rejected Christ, are the victims of the "false teachers" to their own destruction, causing many to "believe a lie." Meaning, yes many will weep and many others will gnash there teeth for having taken part. That makes for--not for one group weeping and gnashing because of their destruction--but rather three groups, one bringing destruction upon themselves, one weeping for having their child-like faith victimized, and another sweating their eternal fate.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth is a single place, not three, and the Meshiah calls it "outer darkness".

The official position of the Church has been and continues to be that after Christ throughly explained that He would go to the Father and "soon" send the Holy Spirit, telling all that "must shortly come to pass"; even clarifying that it was He who would "soon" come, saying, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me"--returning--as having first gone to the Father. Which, being men of flesh and blind to the Spirit, "false teachers" not seeing Jesus return beginning "soon" at Pentecost, began to believe and teach "a lie" about His return--not "soon"--but at a future time.

John 14:15-18 KJV
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Acts 2 Pentecost:

Isaiah 53:12
12 Therefore I will divide him among the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong: for he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So, no, I consider you and many good Christians and friends--victims.

@dak
@Matthias

Lol, so you explain to marks that he is a victim and kindly send him on his way to your tripartite version of outer darkness, and he in turn supports you in your reinterpretation of what you said to Matthias. Why am I not surprised?

 

[ScottA]

I am not even really sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Who is The Church, (in upper case)? What does "in general (officially)" mean? I am being serious: one could actually take that as speaking of the RCC. Lastly, I find it quite difficult to believe that anyone claiming to be a Christian has "rejected Christ in Spirit". Even that phrase makes no sense to me, unless you mean something else by "in Spirit", (capitalized).

I could have said Christendom, but the point is most Christian denominations, their leaders, and statements of faith prescribe to and even insist that Jesus returning "soon" and "all these things" that He said "must shortly come to pass" was not the truth. And I say they have rejected Him "in Spirit", because that was the general thrust of teachings from the need to be born again to "follow Me" as He proceeded to His ascension to be One with the Father who "is spirit", praying that we also be included in that One spiritual existence.