Defending the Trinity

[nothead]

From nohead:

A good argument has the order of God behind it. And common sense is the fulcrum by which we debate. Let the issues be, it is the epitome of free speech. I will not go away even if I am on the other side of your firewall. Tell me the conditions, keep me on one side or even one thread. But deny not the Truth, for it above all is the character and end consideration of the Living God of us. Amen.

From Floyd:
If that was true, you would have no problem answering the below:


Why you think he wants to answer a loaded question, sir? (nohead)

From Floyd:
That is exactly the point;
nohead and Purity use this infantile technique ; and expect every body to jump and answer; but don't like the reciprocal?
We are all (the watchers), waiting for your lucid answers (nohead and Purity) to the question: do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same way you speak against our Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus: YES or NO??

The following Link is the writers opinion of your affiliation:
The father of Lies John 8:44
Don't let this heavy reading delay your answer to the above question!
But; I think we can all be sure that you will not answer, because you are not true adherents to the Statement of Faith of this Grouping!
However; let us see what "wisdom" you are able to impart, in an attempt to salvage your integrity re our Lord's Deity?
Floyd.

The Holy Spirit has been mentioned ever since the Beginning of Creation. But not as an equal partner of God. I've not been trin for over twenty years.

Are there NO OTHER Oneness Pentecostals here? Do we know our history regarding? I am not Oneness, but was for 16 years or so...

The issue came to a head in 1914 when the minority of Oneness Believers split from the Trinitarians. This was because the Trin formulation in Mt 28:19 was not ever used in Acts, the 4x it was said they were baptised in Jesus' name. Oneness do not deny the verse, they have re-interpreted it to mean the SINGULAR name of God is "Jesus" which IS the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I've rather come to the view that this verse was added to, for the same reason they split from the Trinitarians. 4 times in Acts, NOT said in the Trin forumulation, the baptisms.

Also Eusebius mentions eighteen times a short version of evangelism to all nations, in the name of Jesus.

Also Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew may predate Greek manuscripts and has a short form. Eusebius also mentions OTHERS mentioning a Hebrew orignial Matthew. 3x to be specific.

My list of inserts in the Bible are very short. 1 John 5:7 is the other one. There may be a few more I am unaware of..

How this all ties together is that the Holy Spirit has no SELF of autonomous being at all. It was the Ruach of God, and referred to as the indwelling spirit in the MIKSHAN or tents of the nomad Israelites. The radiant SHEKINAH or invisible presence of EL the God of Gods. How can the Breath of God be it's own being? How can the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit of God have it's own self? Not unless God sends it in the name of another.

For John the Baptist this Spirit came in the name of Elijah. For us it comes in the name of Jesus. I don't admittedly know what this means ontologically. But Jews did not SPEAK in ontological terminology at all, since the EXPERIENCE of the Shekinah was so much more important than the rationalization of what it IS inherently.

This SHEKINAH or radiant GLORY was over the Tent of Meeting, then in the Holy of Holies, then in the 'tabernacle' of Jesus' body. Now among us in OUR bodies, and the UNITY by which we act, speak and team together from.

To repeat the pentecostal passage in Jn 17

[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
[SIZE=.75em]24 [/SIZE]Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

God IN us and we IN Him. Jesus IN his Father and his Father IN him. This is the Holy Spirit HEN of unity among believers. Amen.

 

[Fred Lamm]

This is all very intense and very interesting, and I will not pretend to be even close to the level of knowledge of scripture being displayed on both sides of this argument, but I would like to ask a simple question of Nothead and Purity. If there is no Holy Trinity, what are your conclusions about the effect of this on the plan of salvation and Jesus Christ as a Saviour?

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

 

[lforrest]

So how do you like my potato chip arguments? I prefer mine to be flavored with Salt and Vinegar.


I will not subject myself to being tested by you; you should save your breath.

I am not a master of obfuscation,

No only one was and he is the Master!



So you claim only God can bring confusion? It should be obvious that Satan uses confusion as well.

repeating lengthy arguments but saying very little, or quoting a single scripture out of context so that my meaning is hidden. Jesus Christ said let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Out of context.






I'm not saying all arguments should be answered with yes or no.

Jesus faced his enemy with a question they were unwilling to answer. You have no such question that I am unwilling to answer, because the only defense against sound doctrine is falsehood.

This is a position of ignorance and pride - humility acknowledges there's always room to learn greater truth.




There is no Truth greater than Jesus Christ. If you wish to obtain greater truth you must increase in your knowledge of him.

 

[nothead]

This is all very intense and very interesting, and I will not pretend to be even close to the level of knowledge of scripture being displayed on both sides of this argument, but I would like to ask a simple question of Nothead and Purity. If there is no Holy Trinity, what are your conclusions about the effect of this on the plan of salvation and Jesus Christ as a Saviour?

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

Jesus is the symmetrical opposite of Adam the man, who was 'elohim' and first walked with God, then was made mortal and died as a man. Jesus starts out just 'under the angels' and ends up 'elohim' over the angels due to his great accomplishment. Although he was annointed possibly as no man before or since, from the time the 'dove' descended and John the Baptist saw it, he also extended a great power of personal will and effort to the fullest capacity of his flesh and spirit, mind and soul, of his heart which loved his Father the One True God with the all of him. He is the only man to ever accomplish the Shema as it was meant to be...in ideal fashion, never having sinned.

This allowed him to say to his disciples, "Fear not for I have overcome the world." God would not have had any problem doing this, as He knows all the backdoors to both the hardware and software of Creation. But for Jesus this makes him greater than Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston and Charles Bronson all at once. Greater than even the Duke. Greater even than Audrey Murphy. Greater than Charlie Chaplin. Well forget this last.

Then he was glorified to the right hand of God. And two will or are sitting at HIS left and right hands. This Throne may be one seat with other lesser seats. This throne may be one seat with NO seats next to. This throne has ONE entity and ONE ONLY sitting at the top. He is YHWH Elohim the One True God.

I have brought you out of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other ELOHIM to my presence (face). Yes Jesus is RIGHT THERE. But not as equal, sir.

 

[justaname]

To Justaname

Isaiah 9

In the short view, this passage was to Hezekiah in my view, and the Messiah of this age in the long view. But as Hezekiah was a mighty warrior, El Gibber, so too and much more would the descendant of David be, the Christ.

The term "mighty God" ignores the fact that both gibber and El were used for mighty kings. Ezekiel 32:21

[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

Hebrew text:

gibberim.

The main thing I have to consider is the king reference, Hezekiah after Ahaz, specifically. HE was definitely not God almighty.
The context of Isa 9 demands this consideration.

Jer 23:5-6

5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.

"The Lord our Righteousness:"

ieue tzdq*nu :s

YHWH our righteousness.

But the same construction is in Jer 33:16 calling the city of Jerusalem "YHWH our righteousness."

You are flat busted here. No city is God, and no other besides the One True God is God.

Psalm 110:1

110 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Hebrew (Massoretic) text: YHWH to lord (adni) of me...

I went over this along with Jer 24 previously. I don't like to repeat. What here says Jesus is God? Adon(I)
is used for men, as opposed to ADONAI.

Although the Massoretic Text came about 1100 years later, the oral tradition probably informed it.

Prov 30:4

[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Two Gods in heaven: pantheon. This is how you interpret the author here. Remember there was no Hypostatic Union or Athanasian Creed then. How would THEY interpret two Gods in heaven, sir?

Heb 1:8

[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]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.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here again before the Athanasian Creed and the constructs which came after the 5th century there is most obviously two Gods in heaven. Do you REALLY think this is what the author meant? First he calls Jesus "God" and later says GOD anointed him?

Two Gods in heaven like I said. At least SOME posters online admit they believe this. Two Gods in heaven. Pantheon. Polytheism.

How can it NOT be?

Hint: the throne the God is God's Throne. Not the one HE sits on, but the one the kings are sat upon.
In other words, "the throne you established, God" or "the throne the God (the God-throne he established for kings).

Jn 1 and 20:28 I have already said how I interpret. Not what you think, boys and girls.

I appreciate your response...I have been very busy lately, and so has this thread.

I will attempt to respond to this post later.

 

[Purity]

I just read Hammerstone's Excerpt of Recent So-Called Developments on this Thread

...and possibly on a few others; one guy is JW so I figure he must figure in too.

I do not really fit into his allowable niche for anti-posters, and Purity will not either. I don't know exactly what has changed, since Purity has been around for 600 plus posts.
But it is hard for me to believe Purity has an open mind ready for change. His view seems pretty established as far as I can tell.

For me it was 2 1/2 years ago a simple consideration of the Shema and it's own implications. If God is One, what does this mean. And when I figured the answer out for myself, all things became in the Bible, cohesive. I care little what Christianity has determined over the centuries. The first two generations are key, and this is because they were relatively ideal. Whether pentecostally considered, or as to what is true in gospel primally, secondarily and not true at all.

So then what this forum has to do is decide if they are going to allow open discussion pro and con no matter what, or if they are going to censure things when their own position looks less likely. For the Christ was tested in this very same way, and the debates did not go like men to men, rather from man annointed to men. But and yet he was annointed so much that his words are recorded to this day, first orally and now in writtern form.

I will tell you why things have developed to a head or crisis of sorts. Although I am an admitted smart-aleck, my arguments are pointed and clear. Reason and logic do matter in a common sense sort of way. This has always been true even when Jesus was speaking in parable or argument, the debates around the Temple or in synagogue.

A good argument has the order of God behind it. And common sense is the fulcrum by which we debate. Let the issues be, it is the epitome of free speech. I will not go away even if I am on the other side of your firewall. Tell me the conditions, keep me on one side or even one thread. But deny not the Truth, for it above all is the character and end consideration of the Living God of us. Amen.

This is worthy of deeper consideration.

So how do you like my potato chip arguments? I prefer mine to be flavored with Salt and Vinegar.


I will not subject myself to being tested by you; you should save your breath.




So you claim only God can bring confusion? It should be obvious that Satan uses confusion as well.







I'm not saying all arguments should be answered with yes or no.



There is no Truth greater than Jesus Christ. If you wish to obtain greater truth you must increase in your knowledge of him.

With all this said Iforrest we are still yet to get to the bottom of why Jesus could be spoken against by the Holy Spirit not?

This is all very intense and very interesting, and I will not pretend to be even close to the level of knowledge of scripture being displayed on both sides of this argument, but I would like to ask a simple question of Nothead and Purity. If there is no Holy Trinity, what are your conclusions about the effect of this on the plan of salvation and Jesus Christ as a Saviour?

Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm

Firstly, when you say we are teaching there is no Holy Trinity this is not entirely correct. Is their a Heavenly Father, yes; Is there an Only Begotten Son, yes; Is there the Holy Spirit, yes. The Trinity aims to provide a definition of the relationships between these three which in my opinion is not in harmony with the revelation of God.

The discussions in this thread are yet to move to the effects of Gods plan in Christ Jesus but I will say this. We are confronted we two aspects of Jesus which require deeper thought.

1. Christ’s mortality:

He was made like us to experience temptation and to ultimately defeat sin: Heb 2:14-18; Heb 4:15.

Jesus is unique because he is the shepherd and one of the sheep: John 10:1-15.

Jesus was human with real feelings like us: John 4:6; 11:35;John 12:27;19:33-34.

2.Christ’s Divine origin:

This was fundamental to him overcoming sin. It was not possible for other men to be perfectly sinless: Isaiah 41:28; 59:16; Isa 63:5; 1 Jn 1:10; Rev 5:3-4. God sent his own Son to make sinlessness possible: Psa 80:17; Rom 8:3.

Glory goes to God.

Christ’s Resurrection vital:

He was raised so we could be justified: Rom 4:24-25. Jesus did not die as a „substitute‟ as taught by many churches. A substitute does not benefit by giving their life. But Jesus did benefit. God highly exalted him by resurrection: Phil 2:8-9. It was impossible for the grave to hold him: Acts 2:24. He is also our mediator and future King of the world.

No doubt by now you have witnessed I like to ask a lot of questions of the Word and of the believer. Ask yourself why its fundamental Jesus had to be in our nature and why Paul goes to such great lengths to explain his sinful nature and yet not one passage in Scripture is given to defining Hypostasis.

If you take this path I promise it holds great rewards.

Purity

 

[justaname]

Simple observation in Christ's divinity and scripture...

John 2:19
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Please note Jesus' reference to who is doing the raising...

Acts 2:24
24 “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

In context this is Peter speaking...was he wrong? Was Jesus lying? Or did God actually raise Jesus and Jesus is the God behind the raising as scripture actually presents?

 

[Purity]

Simple observation in Christ's divinity and scripture...

John 2:19
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Please note Jesus' reference to who is doing the raising...

Acts 2:24
24 “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

In context this is Peter speaking...was he wrong? Was Jesus lying? Or did God actually raise Jesus and Jesus is the God behind the raising as scripture actually presents?

If it be said that it was the Father's work, for a dead man cannot restore himself to life, this must be admitted; but in his case his obedient life had given him a title to resurrection, and it was not possible that he should be holden of death; hence he could speak of his resurrection being his own act.

Also, against this idea can be set the various passages which plainly teach that God, the Father, was the power by which His Son was raised from the dead: Act 2:30, Act 2:32, Act 2:36; Act 3:15, Act 3:26; Act 4:10; etc

I think the key point is this: although some persisted in taking Christ too literally, they were quite obviously deliberately ignoring the plain intent of his figurative language: even some of the leaders understood what he meant, for they said so later: " 'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again' " (Mat 27:63).

Looking at the misuse of Joh 2:19 by some trinitarians, apparently, I have to say what the blind man who was healed said to the Pharisees: "Herein is a marvellous thing!" or "How remarkable!" (Joh 9:30). In other words, the significance is so obvious, but you choose not to understand!

So in Joh 2:19, it is perfectly plain that Jesus' tabernacle analogy has to do with his death and resurrection. But the Jewish leaders deliberately twisted a figurative allusion into a literal statement, because it suited them to do so. They weren't interested in truth; they were interested in scoring debating points, and finding (trumped-up) charges to lay at his feet. And this hypocrisy was perfectly obvious for all to see, if they were not blinded by hate or prejudice.

So even now, we have trinitarians (it seems) who know full well what Jesus meant by this figure of speech, but deliberately take a part of his "parable" as literal in order to "win" a debate. They would prefer, presumably, to believe that when Jesus spoke of dying, he knew he wouldn't REALLY die... than to believe that -- being dead -- he would have to rely on his Father to raise him from the dead.

 

[nothead]

Simple observation in Christ's divinity and scripture...

John 2:19
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Please note Jesus' reference to who is doing the raising...

Acts 2:24
24 “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

In context this is Peter speaking...was he wrong? Was Jesus lying? Or did God actually raise Jesus and Jesus is the God behind the raising as scripture actually presents?

What we have is a bunch of scriptures saying God raised him up and early ECF'S agreeing to the same, and then one verse in which Jesus said he will raise himself up.

There are two options from my side of the fence.

1) Jesus raised himself up secondarily after the Ruach gave him life again.
2) Jesus was speaking as a prophet, as if he was God, in the first person.

But the question will arise, how even the God of us can raise Himself up from the dead, if He is dead. Laws of normal goings on don't seem to apply. Jesus first feels a separation from his other self, whomever he may be: Eli eli lama sabachthani...and then DIES and in his sleep or deadness then raises his own self up. Em what is wrong with this?

The first problem, the Bible never says "God died." This would be in fact a cataclysmic event never said.

 

[Purity]

Did Jesus benefit from his own death? if so, how?

 

[Floyd]

Purity:
Did Jesus benefit from his own death? if so, how?

Floyd:
"to draw all men (mankind) unto Him".

I would (and others) like you to commit yourself to answering the question above, repeated 5 times, but not answered by you!
Do you speak against the Holy Spirit, in the same way you speak against The Lord Christ Jesus?
Both you and nothead, speak and write in a plausible way in your counter arguments; both of you with the intent of denying the Deity of Christ Jesus. Like Aggripa ," almost thou persuades", except, the killer punch; you deny the God head, and attribute later status to Jesus!

The frequent verse that comes to mind when reading you both is; "beware man's philosophy".
You in particular are a very able proponent of the subtle lie; and that is only of one source!
If you feel so sure (as a human) of the correctness of your thesis; why not give it in plain words; instead of an obfuscated ramble around many often unrelated Scriptures?
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Purity:
Did Jesus benefit from his own death? if so, how?

Floyd:
"to draw all men (mankind) unto Him".

Hi Floyd,
Its good to see you still contributing.
Yes, Jesus represented mankind that's why he is called the Son of Man.
The question is directed to Jesus and how he benefited by his death.
If you believe he did not simply say so otherwise consider the question and answer away.
All ears, I am!
Purity

There are two options from my side of the fence.

1) Jesus raised himself up secondarily after the Ruach gave him life again.
2) Jesus was speaking as a prophet, as if he was God, in the first person.

The first problem, the Bible never says "God died." This would be in fact a cataclysmic event never said.

Option 2. Acts 3:22

 

[Floyd]

Purity; your refusal to answer the simple question; your massive obfuscation, puts you in the rank of Clown!
I say again, do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same way you speak against Christ Jesus, and deny His Deity?
Also, do you deny the Deity of the Holy Spirit?
Do you deny the Deity of Almighty God from your pontiffs chair?
Why your sudden reticent attitude, or are you out of your depth; compared with the truth of the Bible?
When people like you go down a road of heresy, they like you, have to keep silent on specific questions, or make up more heresy!
All of us are waiting for your next departure from the Truth of The Word; Which is That Which "was made Flesh".
If you don't respond to the above specifics, you will not be taken seriously in the future!
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Purity; your refusal to answer the simple question; your massive obfuscation, puts you in the rank of Clown!
I say again, do you speak against the Holy Spirit in the same way you speak against Christ Jesus, and deny His Deity?
Also, do you deny the Deity of the Holy Spirit?
Do you deny the Deity of Almighty God from your pontiffs chair?
Why your sudden reticent attitude, or are you out of your depth; compared with the truth of the Bible?
When people like you go down a road of heresy, they like you, have to keep silent on specific questions, or make up more heresy!
All of us are waiting for your next departure from the Truth of The Word; Which is That Which "was made Flesh".
If you don't respond to the above specifics, you will not be taken seriously in the future!
Floyd.

Usually when one responds it's courteous to respond back - isn't that how civil communication takes place?

Answered way back in #151 here http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19981-defending-the-trinity/?p=224446

x2

 

[Floyd]

Usually when one responds it's courteous to respond back - isn't that how civil communication takes place?

Answered way back in #151 here http://www.christian...inity/?p=224446



Your refusal to be clear, and to answer the questions asked, as said previously; stops you being taken seriously; especially as you so easily denigrate the "Lord of Glory".
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Can you discern the difference between Matt 12:31,32 & Heb 10:29.

I appreciate you are seeking a straight answer but these things are not valued if we do not labour and seek after them in humility.

You have spoken the truth but you are yet to grasp it I feel.

Iforrest

The Son of Man was raised up by God to be persecuted, rejected and crucified. An example of this is found when followers (men and woman) of Jesus, dedicated to his message, turned on him in John 8 when he introduced the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood (in symbol).

His Son of Man status / title stamps Him as the representative of humanity, the one title they finally could not accept! John 12:33, 31-34 “Who is this Son of Man”

Mark 9:12 "Son of Man...suffer" - it was prophesied that the Messiah would suffer and taste death Heb 2:9 and to save them John 12:23-24;32

The Son of Man must be lifted up John 8:28 which is an obvious reference to his crucifixion John 3:14; 12:32.

Here in John 8:28 was a clear prediction:

• of the manner of his death
• the Jews involvement in his rejection Acts 2:23 cp John 13:19
• that as a result, some would be converted Acts 2:36-37
• The “lifting up” would prove (John 8:26):

(1) that he was “God manifest” in his total rejection of self to declare God’s righteousness Rom 3:24-26
(2) RSV: “do nothing by my own authority” – his supreme sacrifice could not have come from mere human sentiment John 5:19-23, 30; 7:16
(3) as “son of man” he is representative of all men John 12:31-33; Eph 3:4-6. Their question: “Who is this ‘son of man’?” John 12:34

However, what of speaking against the Spirit of God (HS) which had been placed in His Son - what if one rejected not the fleshly Son of Man who would be crucified, but rejected the Spirit of Life within him?

What end would be to that person who rejected the Word of His Power (HS)? Heb 1:3

What would happen to those who rejected no longer the Son of Man (though he stills stands representative of mankind Rev 1:13;14:14) but the Son of God?

Rejected the blood of the covenant? But more than this...post Christs sacrifice those who rejected Yahweh's Grace or the Spirit of Grace (HS) what would happen to that person? Acts 1:18 (bowels signify mercy)

Heb 10:29 HOW MUCH MORE SEVERELY DO YOU THINK A MAN DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED WHO HAS TRAMPLED THE SON OF GOD UNDER FOOT, WHO HAS TREATED AS AN UNHOLY THING THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT THAT SANCTIFIED HIM, AND WHO HAS INSULTED THE SPIRIT OF GRACE?:

Transgressing the law of Moses, grievous though that may be, is not as serious an offense as rejecting the work of Christ, once a person has received it as the truth. The language of Heb 10:29 is very strong, but that is the point: this is what "apostasy" is! To be an apostate means that one reckons Christ's blood -- the blood by which the eternal covenant has been confirmed or ratified -- to be common or unholy -- this despite the fact that the person has been sanctified by this very blood! The apostate is one who has therefore insulted God's most generous grace -- which is the greatest blessing ever offered to man.

After all the blood of the covenant was the very covenant Jesus himself took part in Heb 13:20 - was made perfect as we shall be made perfect Heb 13:21.

O how rich the promise?
Purity

 

[nothead]

Usually when one responds it's courteous to respond back - isn't that how civil communication takes place?

Answered way back in #151 here http://www.christian...inity/?p=224446



Your refusal to be clear, and to answer the questions asked, as said previously; stops you being taken seriously; especially as you so easily denigrate the "Lord of Glory".
Floyd.

Purity:
Did Jesus benefit from his own death? if so, how?

Floyd:
"to draw all men (mankind) unto Him".

I would (and others) like you to commit yourself to answering the question above, repeated 5 times, but not answered by you!
Do you speak against the Holy Spirit, in the same way you speak against The Lord Christ Jesus?
Both you and nothead, speak and write in a plausible way in your counter arguments; both of you with the intent of denying the Deity of Christ Jesus. Like Aggripa ," almost thou persuades", except, the killer punch; you deny the God head, and attribute later status to Jesus!

The frequent verse that comes to mind when reading you both is; "beware man's philosophy".
You in particular are a very able proponent of the subtle lie; and that is only of one source!
If you feel so sure (as a human) of the correctness of your thesis; why not give it in plain words; instead of an obfuscated ramble around many often unrelated Scriptures?
Floyd.

I am not too interested in men's philosophies, in fact this is where Christians went off the deep end in the fourth century. Gnostic, GREEK considerations took precedence as to the very ESSENCE, SUBSTANCE, OUSIA, of God, in other words, His chemical makeup, genetics, DNA, species, categorization or classification, God-material, whatever you want to call it: ontology.

So then historically you and your father's did what you are claiming I do. NO MAN can figure these out, describe God's ontology. So HOW THE HECK could they conclude at the end of the Council of Nicea that God's ontology and Jesus' ontology were the same? THIS WAS what was concluded. And the driving force was the OPTIMISM of the day as to what a man CAN describe in reality.

The Jews never attempted it. Secret: this is what problem arises with Calvinism too, man describing what NO MAN can describe, the Sovereign Will of God at Endgame.
How DETERMINISTIC is God's will after all, in opposition to the will of man.

 

[Purity]

The Jews never attempted it. Secret: this is what problem arises with Calvinism too, man describing what NO MAN can describe, the Sovereign Will of God at Endgame.
How DETERMINISTIC is God's will after all, in opposition to the will of man.

 

[nothead]

Several Misconceptions Regarding this Vaunted Trinity

1) It is a sacred concept, primal to our faith

No, it is NOT. By what authority would you sirs say that it is? Not by Sola Scriptura. The Trinity is not there. God never defined Himself as Three-in-One even if I DID believe Mt 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 were not inserts.

The Reason Why: No Bridge of Understanding. The God who gave the Jews the Shema most certainly WOULD explain a new 'revelation' in terms and explanation of the older paradigm.

Notice I said THE GOD. This God has been singular from day one. And the NT proves it.

By what authority would you say Trinity is established? JESUS? Did he ever say he was God? And if it was a mystery, then why and how did it get to be revealed? Not by Thomas who exclaimed "My lord and my God!" No one ever REPEATED him. Not by Jn 10 when Jesus says "I and the Father are one." He explains then and there he was only 'elohim' UNDER YWHW Elohim.

By what authority was Trinity established? By Councils, the ones AFTER 325 A.D. when they made Jesus' ontology the SAME as God?
Why and how are THESE authoritative? How many Roman Catholics ARE among us on this forum?

2) It is the Orthodox Position of the Universal Church, wherever it may be, whomever it may encompass.

No, it is NOT. The first two generations of Christianity prove it. The First Three Creeds I have listed here prove it. And the Canon of NT proves it with AS MANY actually MORE True verses as proof-text.

Furthermore I can readily show almost all proof-text on the trin side is interpreted wrongly.

These two considerations will warrant for the viable malleable theologian AN INVESTIGATION into the very Deity of the Christ.

 

[lforrest]

Can you discern the difference between Matt 12:31,32 & Heb 10:29.

I appreciate you are seeking a straight answer but these things are not valued if we do not labour and seek after them in humility.

You have spoken the truth but you are yet to grasp it I feel.

While I will not subject myself to this testing, I'll offer this analogy.

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is like a lone astronaut that removes his helmet in the vacuum of space and tosses it away. If he is continuous long enough to worry about his fate, he may wish to call for help over the radio. He tries to speak, but his voice betrays him as sound can not travel through the vacuum of space. He is already dead as the heat leaves his body making him into a frozen husk.