Defend your 'Trinity'- by taking one scripture at a time.

[theefaith]

Faulty logic.

Gertrude had a son, singular, named Pete.

Yet Gertrude had two other sins, afterward.

The first statement about Gertrude does not make Gertrude a perpetual virgin.

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(A son singular) (does James save his people?)


Lk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(This verse imply’s a vow of perpetual virginity, She refuses even the exalted dignity of mother of God and mother of our savior if it means violating Her vow of perpetual virginity)

 

[Brakelite]

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(A son singular) (does James save his people?)


Lk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(This verse imply’s a vow of perpetual virginity, She refuses even the exalted dignity of mother of God and mother of our savior if it means violating Her vow of perpetual virginity)

No surprise that you impose so much of your own imagination into the scripture... It really is your only recourse to justify your church's dogmas. Now maybe Mary did remain a virgin... Maybe those brothers and sisters of Jesus were all step siblings being Joseph's children from a former marriage. But you certainly cannot prove your theory that Mary would have refused the angels message and God's purpose for her if it meant she would lose her virginity. That's a massive stretch and mere presumption. Nothing more.

 

[Wrangler]

I know this firsthand, as I read a Watchtower quote from Brittanica on the trinity, where they quoted “ the trinity is not found in the Bible”.

I happened to have a set of Brittanica encyclopedias, so I of course looked the quote up.

What it REALLY said was “ the trinity is not found in just one place in the Bible”

Do you deny the fact that the trinity is not in the Bible?

 

[theefaith]

No surprise that you impose so much of your own imagination into the scripture... It really is your only recourse to justify your church's dogmas. Now maybe Mary did remain a virgin... Maybe those brothers and sisters of Jesus were all step siblings being Joseph's children from a former marriage. But you certainly cannot prove your theory that Mary would have refused the angels message and God's purpose for her if it meant she would lose her virginity. That's a massive stretch and mere presumption. Nothing more.

see I actually believe scripture
I believe it says what means
And means what it says

 

[tigger 2]

I highly suspect that all your citations come straight from the Watchtower, and they are notorious for editing the sources the quote.

I know this firsthand, as I read a Watchtower quote from Brittanica [sic] on the trinity, where they quoted “ the trinity is not found in the Bible”.

I happened to have a set of Brittanica encyclopedias, so I of course looked the quote up.

What it REALLY said was “ the trinity is not found in just one place in the Bible”

.............................
"Highly suspect" all you want, but I personally found the quotes I used without quoting WT writings .

The quotes from the WT are "notorious" because of all the mostly distorted attacks by certain trinitarians.

I have access to a few sets of Britannica also. Please give me the source (year, volume, page number) of the Britannica statement that the WT quoted. You should be giving proper sources for all your quotes, you know.

 

[theefaith]

.............................
"Highly suspect" all you want, but I personally found the quotes I used.

The quotes from the WT are "notorious" because of all the mostly distorted attacks by certain trinitarians.

I have access to a few sets of Britannica also. Please give me the source (year, volume, page number) of the WT quote you say is false. You should be giving proper sources for all your quotes, you know.

where’s the watch tower in the New Testament?

 

[Berserk]

Curtis: "Your attempt at rebuttal ignores the fact that being sinless is the epitome of being good."

This response ignores these 4 facts:
(1) You ducked my point that Jesus felt the need to receive John's baptism of repentance and did so to "fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 415)," not to set a good example.

(2) Jesus had to "learn obedience through the things He suffered (Hebrews)," so that His ultimate perfection was a process acquired by trial and error.

(3) The 12-year-old Jesus rightly merits Mary's rebuke for leaving the family entourage near Jerusalem for 3 days without telling his parents where He was going, thus worrying then sick unnecessarily (see Luke 2:43-48). Thus, Jesus only gradually acquires God's "favor:" "Jesus increased in wisdom...and in favor with God (2:52)." By definition, then, Jesus had previously been in less favor with God.

(4) Jesus was tested on all points in the same way that we are, yet without sin.= (Hebrews 4:15)." Part of being human is the need to learn by trial and error. So Jesus' maturation involved many mistakes, but not sin because sin is the condition of separation from God and Jesus was never separated from God.
Jesus' implied teaching that God is the source of all goodness, so that Jesus' goodness is derivative from God's goodness.

Curtis: "If Jesus isn’t perfectly good, he isn’t qualified to die for sins."
A pontification without evidence! If Jesus is a divine incarnation, that fact is sufficient for Him to "die for our sins."

"Curtis: "And even if your claim was true that He is only the Son of God, and not God the Son, He still is MUCH MUCH MORE than merely a good teacher, which would still need to be pointed out."

Here you overlook my disclaimer that I accept the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. I am merely pointing out that your response to the OP on the basis of Scripture is inadequate.

 

[MatthewG]

Jesus Christ is and was the expressed image of the invisible God.

Anyone who had known Jesus Christ seen the Father by the spirit of God with-in Jesus Christ. They knew God because of the Son of God expressing His Father intentions by doing the Fathers will.

 

[theefaith]

Curtis: "Your attempt at rebuttal ignores the fact that being sinless is the epitome of being good."

This response ignores these 4 facts:
(1) You ducked my point that Jesus felt the need to receive John's baptism of repentance and did so to "fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 415)," not to set a good example.

(2) Jesus had to "learn obedience through the things He suffered (Hebrews)," so that His ultimate perfection was a process acquired by trial and error.

(3) The 12-year-old Jesus rightly merits Mary's rebuke for leaving the family entourage near Jerusalem for 3 days without telling his parents where He was going, thus worrying then sick unnecessarily (see Luke 2:43-48). Thus, Jesus only gradually acquires God's "favor:" "Jesus increased in wisdom...and in favor with God (2:52)." By definition, then, Jesus had previously been in less favor with God.

(4) Jesus was tested on all points in the same way that we are, yet without sin.= (Hebrews 4:15)." Part of being human is the need to learn by trial and error. So Jesus' maturation involved many mistakes, but not sin because sin is the condition of separation from God and Jesus was never separated from God.
Jesus' implied teaching that God is the source of all goodness, so that Jesus' goodness is derivative from God's goodness.

Curtis: "If Jesus isn’t perfectly good, he isn’t qualified to die for sins."
A pontification without evidence! If Jesus is a divine incarnation, that fact is sufficient for Him to "die for our sins."

"Curtis: "And even if your claim was true that He is only the Son of God, and not God the Son, He still is MUCH MUCH MORE than merely a good teacher, which would still need to be pointed out."

Here you overlook my disclaimer that I accept the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. I am merely pointing out that your response to the OP on the basis of Scripture is inadequate.

In his human nature yes he learned and grew, but in his divine nature he astounded the doctors

lk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

 

[Brakelite]

see I actually believe scripture
I believe it says what means
And means what it says

I believe you. But you do so only in so much as your church agrees with what scripture is saying. Your church teaches that only her interpretation of scripture is the reliable and correct way. If your church taught that black is white, you would believe your church. The Bible in any teaching comes second place to your church, which teaches tradition as being more authoritative. Your church even teaches that she can change even the counsels and teachings of God if she thinks it appropriate. Even the written scriptural commandments of God, if tradition dictates so to do. So you may very well believe what scripture says...but only within certain parameters. And unfortunately, the vast majority of Protestantism as of the same mind as you. They still cleave to some apostate traditional unscriptural teachings they learned at the feet of the papal throne.