I ask the Trinitarians and the Jehovah's Witnesses...

[DNB]

That statement suggests that ANYONE born in the flesh can become their OWN Christ. That is a doctrine of the OCCULTISTS. They believe that. That's why they refuse to admit Jesus of Nazareth as GOD The Son, God having been born in the flesh, and being TOTALLY WITHOUT SIN. That is why ALL born in the flesh need Jesus of Nazareth, because HE ONLY was without sin, whereas the rest of us ALL are guilty of sin, as we were ALL concluded under sin; but not HIM.

And for this reason God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us, for the remission of sins FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON HIM. That is why ONLY HE was perfect and without sin, and is ABLE to forgive our sins, and none other can.

This is also why Apostle John in 1 John 2 reveals that those who refuse to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is The Christ are thus antichrists, because they have denied The Son. And you can't have The Father without The Son, Apostle John further shows there.



What you have just said there is blasphemy, because you simply REVERSED what Apostle John said in 1 John 2.

You deny The Son, thus you do NOT have The Father either, making you an antichrist.

How can I say that you deny The Son? Your statements denying the Deity of Christ Jesus is one of your main giveaways. No flesh can save anyone. So if you say Jesus was not God come in the flesh, then you are saying anyone's flesh can save, and that we don't actually need Jesus Christ. Your statement that any flesh-born man can do whatever God gives to do is also a betrayal against Jesus Christ, because by that you debase Jesus of Nazareth down to prophet status only, and not The Son of God, God The Saviour.

Davy, for crying out loud, I didn't say at all that any flesh-born creature can do, or become whatever he wants. I said if God ordains it as such, than absolutely anyone can have that power and authority that God has given him, obviously.
Christ was perfect, that is, he not only obeyed God even unto death, but more than that, he loved God with all his heart, mind and soul. Something that was incumbent upon all humans to do, but that no one but Christ, has fulfilled. This is why God has exalted him to the degree that he did - to His right-hand side to rule with all authority and power.

 

[DNB]

You don't know your Bible. The sin in God's Garden by Adam and Eve was not the very first sin.

1 John 3:8
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
KJV

Jesus, The Son of God, was ordained as The Saviour from the foundation of this world. That means PRIOR to Adam and Eve's sin. He was ordained because of what Satan did in the world before Adam and Eve.

You clearly don't know your Bible, or the topic at hand. Where in the world did your point come from, for I was explaining to Cooper how God is the author of both death and life, then you reply with a post on sin?
I was talking about the death that all life forms suffer, loss of vitality, not spiritual death.
And as far as you not knowing your Bible goes, many things in life and within the universe were ordained before history to be as they are. This does not mean that chronologically, in whatever realm, that they preceded their own birth, obviously.

 

[DNB]

We don't agree on Scripture, evidently.

...or hermeneutics and exegesis.

 

[DNB]

Ever play dodge ball? Well if you guys have not....you are now playing scriptural dodge ball. One person picks up a ball of scriptures and throws it at the other. But even if it hits them, in this game he or she is not out. They just pick up a different color ball of scriptures and throw it back at them. Since the ball scriptures do not convince anyone, then, this game can go on forever.

Shouldn't you be asking yourself a few questions? Why can this go on forever? Why does the other fellow have scriptures from the Bible that he can throw back at me.

There is a joke about how to frustrate a stupid person. (The joke use to be about pollacks, but I fell in love with the polls and now i do not tell jokes about them anymore.) Anyway, the joke goes like this...how do you frustrate a stupid person? The answer is wait until they have to pee real bad and put them in a round room and tell them that they can only pee in the corner.

And yes, this relates to you people. If do not catch on to the fact that the wiser question is; Why does the scriptures seem to support both sides? Then you are the guys running around holding your wee-wee.

But don't let me stop you....Run Forest Run!

Is there a doctrine within all of Christendom that is without controversy, that does not have its alleged proof-text according to whatever side that one is on? Are you implying that there is no resolve, or that both sides are equally weighted in substantiation?
The wiser question is not why do the Scriptures support both sides, for that is an oxymoron, they only perceptibly support both sides on a doctrinal level. The proper question is, why are people so frivolous, reckless and irrational when establishing divine ordinances. This is the prevalent issue within Christendom - prosperity gospels, mysticism, King James Onlyists, transubstantiation, intercession of dead saints, god-men theories, and 3 = 1 dementia.
Yes, you're right, this is getting protracted to a pointless level. For me, right now, it's just an excercise in having a response in defense of my position, and that I can't be bothered to venture out to other threads right now.

 

[farouk]

@soul man This thread is having difficulty...

 

[mjrhealth]

You clearly don't know your Bible, or the topic at hand.

@Davy

Honestly if all men would just go to Christ we would not have all this, but is any one willing to give Him who is the truth even a little chance, so many foolish virgins out there.

 

[Grailhunter]

Is there a doctrine within all of Christendom that is without controversy, that does not have its alleged proof-text according to whatever side that one is on? Are you implying that there is no resolve, or that both sides are equally weighted in substantiation?
The wiser question is not why do the Scriptures support both sides, for that is an oxymoron, they only perceptibly support both sides on a doctrinal level. The proper question is, why are people so frivolous, reckless and irrational when establishing divine ordinances. This is the prevalent issue within Christendom - prosperity gospels, mysticism, King James Onlyists, transubstantiation, intercession of dead saints, god-men theories, and 3 = 1 dementia.
Yes, you're right, this is getting protracted to a pointless level. For me, right now, it's just an excercise in having a response in defense of my position, and that I can't be bothered to venture out to other threads right now.

Is there a doctrine within all of Christendom that is without controversy, that does not have its alleged proof-text according to whatever side that one is on?

Not all are open for debate. There are many straight forwarded scriptures. Then again, most anything can be twisted with enough imagination. But therein lies the best debates.

Are you implying that there is no resolve, or that both sides are equally weighted in substantiation?

This topic and a few others are more or less equally supported. So to the eternal dodge ball game.
Again the smarter thing to do is put your heads together and find why there are scriptures on both sides of the topic. Christ's church has been fractured into well over 30,000 denomination by men picking one side or the other....without questioning why.

The wiser question is not why do the Scriptures support both sides, for that is an oxymoron, they only perceptibly support both sides on a doctrinal level.

Misuse of the word oxymoron…don’t feel bad…been there did that. “They only perceptibly support both sides on doctrinal level." lol belly roll! And it is always the other guy that “perceives” that his scriptures support his views. Ergo centuries of this sort of thing. So metaphorically you have tied your own tails together and jumped over a clothesline…the hissing and clawing could go on forever.

The proper question is, why are people so frivolous, reckless and irrational when establishing divine ordinances. This is the prevalent issue within Christendom - prosperity gospels, mysticism, King James Onlyists, transubstantiation, intercession of dead saints, god-men theories, and 3 = 1 dementia.
Yes, you're right, this is getting protracted to a pointless level. For me, right now, it's just an excercise in having a response in defense of my position, and that I can't be bothered to venture out to other threads right now.

Do not follow this.

Many times there is a reason why the men writing the scriptures wrote what they wrote. The challenge is to find out why.

 

[DNB]

Not all are open for debate. There are many straight forwarded scriptures. Then again, most anything can be twisted with enough imagination. But therein lies the best debates.

Outside of the frivolous or more 'venial' issues, The Bible can appear to be very cryptic or ambiguous at times, and thus, warrant debate or deliberation. Plus, Covenantal changes can add to the confusion.

Misuse of the word oxymoron

...oxymoron, because God does not establish contradictory precepts. Thus, it is an oxymoron to say 'Scripture supports both sides'. ...but, you did state 'appears to', so, in that case, it's not an oxymoron.

Do not follow this.
Many times there is a reason why the men writing the scriptures wrote what they wrote. The challenge is to find out why.

'The proper question is, why are people so frivolous, reckless and irrational when establishing divine ordinances.' Meaning, there is evidently a large irrationality in Christian thought, as in KJVO, Ransom Theory, Papacy - vicar of Christ, tran/con-substantiation, triune god-head (god-man), ... The question lies, how did such heretical nonsense infiltrate the Church or a denomination, to such a permanent degree?

I think that due to God's providence and solicitude, He has delineated His Word explicitly and emphatically, ...but also wisely, in that He has reveled it to babes and hidden it from the so-called wise & prudent. And, to me, this is where the confusion lies. We have exegetes/eisegetes who fail to perceive the profundity of His Word, and employ a hyper-literal hermeneutic to their interpretations. Do you know how many times people on this forum have concluded that God has a body, due to anthropomorphism in the Bible (I'm sure that you do, and many more absurdities as such)?

My point is, God's Word is deep and can be purposely discreet. It is this discretion that has both confounded and exposed the unwise and reckless. That is, I find it very hard to believe that an insightful and sincere person came up with the Ransom Theory of Atonement, or the Papacy, or the KJV as inspired, or any Mariology, or God's triunity, or Jesus' bi-unity, etc... Thus, I will not say that these controversies are equally weighted, but rather, mishandled.
So, to answer your question, I have strongly considered why, through Scripture, one can concluded that Jesus is a god-man, and that God has triplicated Himself, and I cannot give such an exegetical process or personal theology any level of merit or dignity. It is farcical, and caused by a lack of depth and perception into the true and rational mysteries of God.

 

[Grailhunter]

Outside of the frivolous or more 'venial' issues, The Bible can appear to be very cryptic or ambiguous at times, and thus, warrant debate or deliberation. Plus, Covenantal changes can add to the confusion.

Again equally opposing scriptures are not cryptic or ambiguous at all.

Covenantal changes? First you would have to know what they are and why.

...oxymoron, because God does not establish contradictory precepts. Thus, it is an oxymoron to say 'Scripture supports both sides'. ...but, you did state 'appears to', so, in that case, it's not an oxymoron.

How do you figure how you have gotten, where you are at? The Bible is full of clear and contradictory scriptures. These statement are so clear that they have divided the Church into over 30,000 Protestant denominations. Each picking a sided, instead of figuring out why there are sides.

'The proper question is, why are people so frivolous, reckless and irrational when establishing divine ordinances.' Meaning, there is evidently a large irrationality in Christian thought, as in KJVO, Ransom Theory, Papacy - vicar of Christ, tran/con-substantiation, triune god-head (god-man), ... The question lies, how did such heretical nonsense infiltrate the Church or a denomination, to such a permanent degree?

I think that due to God's providence and solicitude, He has delineated His Word explicitly and emphatically, ...but also wisely, in that He has reveled it to babes and hidden it from the so-called wise & prudent. And, to me, this is where the confusion lies. We have exegetes/eisegetes who fail to perceive the profundity of His Word, and employ a hyper-literal hermeneutic to their interpretations. Do you know how many times people on this forum have concluded that God has a body, due to anthropomorphism in the Bible (I'm sure that you do, and many more absurdities as such)?

My point is, God's Word is deep and can be purposely discreet. It is this discretion that has both confounded and exposed the unwise and reckless. That is, I find it very hard to believe that an insightful and sincere person came up with the Ransom Theory of Atonement, or the Papacy, or the KJV as inspired, or any Mariology, or God's triunity, or Jesus' bi-unity, etc... Thus, I will not say that these controversies are equally weighted, but rather, mishandled.
So, to answer your question, I have strongly considered why, through Scripture, one can concluded that Jesus is a god-man, and that God has triplicated Himself, and I cannot give such an exegetical process or personal theology any level of merit or dignity. It is farcical, and caused by a lack of depth and perception into the true and rational mysteries of God.

It still sound like you are trying to justify why you chase your tail!

 

[DNB]

Again, 'opposing verses' are oxymoronic, the challenge is on how to remove the ambiguity... Hyper-literalism is a large part of the confusion. Transubstantiation, for example, is derived from '...eat my flesh and drink my blood...' , what could be more clear? Or, what about self-flagellation, a common practice in medieval times, was that not substantiated from 'clear and explicit' passages as in '...if your eye offends you, cut it out...'?

You call it equal verses on each side, and I know what you mean, but my point is that ultimately, it's not equally weighted.
The trinity does not have the support that the other three major revelations of the NT have, namely the suffering Messiah, Faith over Works, and Gentiles allowance into the Kingdom of God.

There is absolutely no trinitarian nomenclature throughout the entire Bible (triune, trinity, god-man, God the Son, incarnation, dual-natured, three-in-one, two-in-one (natures), eternal son, God the Holy Spirit, ...)
Not a single prophetical attestation, confirmed by an inspired writer, where his conclusion asserted that Jesus is God.
Not one of the major Patriarchs, Prophets, Kings, Priests, or any predominant character of the OT, ever prayed to a triune God. Not a single doxology or psalm praised God as three.
Not a single conversion narrative in the NT, included a trinitarian formula in order to save the convert.
The Atonement does not work having God propitiate Himself, or merely raise Himself from the dead.
The doctrine of the trinity is beyond comprehension, not because of its magnitude, but because of the irrationality and implausibility of its fundaments (god-man is an oxymoron, everything that defines divinity, is antithetical to that which defines humanity). It is a blatantly nonviable contradiction.
etc.....
The doctrine defames God in every way, in his wisdom, ontology and revelation in His word. There is no glory to God to be found anywhere within this unbiblical doctrine.

The controversy is by no means equally supported on both sides.

 

[Grailhunter]

Again, 'opposing verses' are oxymoronic, the challenge is on how to remove the ambiguity... Hyper-literalism is a large part of the confusion. Transubstantiation, for example, is derived from '...eat my flesh and drink my blood...' , what could be more clear? Or, what about self-flagellation, a common practice in medieval times, was that not substantiated from 'clear and explicit' passages as in '...if your eye offends you, cut it out...'?

You call it equal verses on each side, and I know what you mean, but my point is that ultimately, it's not equally weighted.
The trinity does not have the support that the other three major revelations of the NT have, namely the suffering Messiah, Faith over Works, and Gentiles allowance into the Kingdom of God.

There is absolutely no trinitarian nomenclature throughout the entire Bible (triune, trinity, god-man, God the Son, incarnation, dual-natured, three-in-one, two-in-one (natures), eternal son, God the Holy Spirit, ...)
Not a single prophetical attestation, confirmed by an inspired writer, where his conclusion asserted that Jesus is God.
Not one of the major Patriarchs, Prophets, Kings, Priests, or any predominant character of the OT, ever prayed to a triune God. Not a single doxology or psalm praised God as three.
Not a single conversion narrative in the NT, included a trinitarian formula in order to save the convert.
The Atonement does not work having God propitiate Himself, or merely raise Himself from the dead.
The doctrine of the trinity is beyond comprehension, not because of its magnitude, but because of the irrationality and implausibility of its fundaments (god-man is an oxymoron, everything that defines divinity, is antithetical to that which defines humanity). It is a blatantly nonviable contradiction.
etc.....
The doctrine defames God in every way, in his wisdom, ontology and revelation in His word. There is no glory to God to be found anywhere within this unbiblical doctrine.

The controversy is by no means equally supported on both sides.

lol So you are saying that they have never given you supporting scriptures for their views?

 

[mjrhealth]

Is there a doctrine within all of Christendom that is without controversy, that does not have its alleged proof-text according to whatever side that one is on?

Not all are open for debate. There are many straight forwarded scriptures. Then again, most anything can be twisted with enough imagination. But therein lies the best debates.

Are you implying that there is no resolve, or that both sides are equally weighted in substantiation?

This topic and a few others are more or less equally supported. So to the eternal dodge ball game.
Again the smarter thing to do is put your heads together and find why there are scriptures on both sides of the topic. Christ's church has been fractured into well over 30,000 denomination by men picking one side or the other....without questioning why.

The wiser question is not why do the Scriptures support both sides, for that is an oxymoron, they only perceptibly support both sides on a doctrinal level.

Misuse of the word oxymoron…don’t feel bad…been there did that. “They only perceptibly support both sides on doctrinal level." lol belly roll! And it is always the other guy that “perceives” that his scriptures support his views. Ergo centuries of this sort of thing. So metaphorically you have tied your own tails together and jumped over a clothesline…the hissing and clawing could go on forever.

The proper question is, why are people so frivolous, reckless and irrational when establishing divine ordinances. This is the prevalent issue within Christendom - prosperity gospels, mysticism, King James Onlyists, transubstantiation, intercession of dead saints, god-men theories, and 3 = 1 dementia.
Yes, you're right, this is getting protracted to a pointless level. For me, right now, it's just an excercise in having a response in defense of my position, and that I can't be bothered to venture out to other threads right now.

Do not follow this.

Many times there is a reason why the men writing the scriptures wrote what they wrote. The challenge is to find out why.

Actually the challenge is to find Christ for ones self, the hone who is the truth who gets left out a lot. As teh bible says, he is not so very far from anyone of us, but to many He may as well be in another universe.

 

[Grailhunter]

Actually the challenge is to find Christ for ones self, the hone who is the truth who gets left out a lot. As teh bible says, he is not so very far from anyone of us, but to many He may as well be in another universe.

There ya go!

 

[DNB]

lol So you are saying that they have never given you supporting scriptures for their views?

I guess it would depends on one's hermeneutics? Sorry GH, but did you not understand my previous post?

 

[Grailhunter]

I guess it would depends on one's hermeneutics? Sorry GH, but did you not understand my previous post?

I understand what you are saying. But it is still you pointing out what you believe.
You seem to suggest no one here provided scriptures from their point of view.

My beliefs regarding the Trinity is three Gods, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit's naming remaining nameless because it is too shocking.) Now...three Gods....united....but not one. But that does not mean that there is no scriptural support that it is three Gods in one person. The evolving formula for the Trinity occurred along the line and up to the ecumenical counsels. There were several reasons why the one God formula was selected, but this does not mean anything to those that only formulate their belief from between the covers of the Bible. For them it is just going to be, as it has been, a continual battle between opposing scriptures.

This still goes back to people telling different renditions of events. It still goes back to scriptures that contradict each other. Sometimes you have to get into the history of it to find out what is going on. It does not matter if the topic is the Trinity, or who created the world, or what exactly occurred in the conception of Christ, or what constitutes salvation...the list goes on and on and there are scriptures on each side of the point of views. At some point you should look at the line between the two sets of scriptures and ask yourself why? Why is this?

 

[DNB]

I understand what you are saying. But it is still you pointing out what you believe.
You seem to suggest no one here provided scriptures from their point of view.

My beliefs regarding the Trinity is three Gods, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit's naming remaining nameless because it is too shocking.) Now...three Gods....united....but not one. But that does not mean that there is no scriptural support that it is three Gods in one person. The evolving formula for the Trinity occurred along the line and up to the ecumenical counsels. There were several reasons why the one God formula was selected, but this does not mean anything to those that only formulate their belief from between the covers of the Bible. For them it is just going to be, as it has been, a continual battle between opposing scriptures.

This still goes back to people telling different renditions of events. It still goes back to scriptures that contradict each other. Sometimes you have to get into the history of it to find out what is going on. It does not matter if the topic is the Trinity, or who created the world, or what exactly occurred in the conception of Christ, or what constitutes salvation...the list goes on and on and there are scriptures on each side of the point of views. At some point you should look at the line between the two sets of scriptures and ask yourself why? Why is this?

My point was that I believe that I provided fundamental reasons that undermined their proof-text, as being proof-text.
And to supplement, their is an intrinsic redundancy when you have 3 omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent gods within one god-head. When it requires only one all powerful being to create a universe, apply all necessary providence, imminence and maintenance, answer all prayers, etc... then it is foolish and disparaging to claim that there are three, let alone two, divine beings within the god-head.
This is the approach that I was taking, analyzing the issue at a fundamental level. Yes, in their minds, they believe that the verse 'before Abraham was, I am' is an admission by Jesus of his divinity. Or Thomas exclaiming '..my Lord, and my God', or John 1:1, 'In the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and was God...', etc supports their god-man theory. That is, equally as much as 'eat my flesh' supports con or transubstantiation, etc.. A radical conclusion requires a radical testimony. The reasons that I enumerated, I believe, preclude the option to consider these verses a proof-text for a three-in-one godhead. The requisite explicit and didactic statements that all doctrines must be based on, are just not there. Most leading trinitarians will agree with at least that much - it is not taught in Scripture as a doctrine, but implied. Deplorable hermeneutics for such an integral doctrine.

Okay, now you are sounding a little unconventional, you do not hold to sola scriptura? I do. I didn't quite understand the ultimate point of your last post, but you seemed to say some rather peculiar things. Things that I would consider absurd, like 3 gods, because again, there is no room nor necessity, for 3 omnipresent and all powerful beings in one universe.

 

[Grailhunter]

My point was that I believe that I provided fundamental reasons that undermined their proof-text, as being proof-text.
And to supplement, their is an intrinsic redundancy when you have 3 omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent gods within one god-head. When it requires only one all powerful being to create a universe, apply all necessary providence, imminence and maintenance, answer all prayers, etc... then it is foolish and disparaging to claim that there are three, let alone two, divine beings within the god-head.
This is the approach that I was taking, analyzing the issue at a fundamental level. Yes, in their minds, they believe that the verse 'before Abraham was, I am' is an admission by Jesus of his divinity. Or Thomas exclaiming '..my Lord, and my God', or John 1:1, 'In the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and was God...', etc supports their god-man theory. That is, equally as much as 'eat my flesh' supports con or transubstantiation, etc.. A radical conclusion requires a radical testimony. The reasons that I enumerated, I believe, preclude the option to consider these verses a proof-text for a three-in-one godhead. The requisite explicit and didactic statements that all doctrines must be based on, are just not there. Most leading trinitarians will agree with at least that much - it is not taught in Scripture as a doctrine, but implied. Deplorable hermeneutics for such an integral doctrine.

Okay, now you are sounding a little unconventional, you do not hold to sola scriptura? I do. I didn't quite understand the ultimate point of your last post, but you seemed to say some rather peculiar things. Things that I would consider absurd, like 3 gods, because again, there is no room nor necessity, for 3 omnipresent and all powerful beings in one universe.

Count them, 30,000 denominations that have pulled beliefs from the same book, you read. It has been said that if the Bible was a traffic manual, it would not be safe to drive on the roads. There is plenty of scriptural evidence to support the 3 God formula as well as the one God formula. If you are Sola Scriptura, then you are forever limited to chasing your tail. A single circle that goes no where. Too many contradictions for Sola Scriptura to be workable.

 

[FollowHim]

Pessimism, Jesus warned that many would fall away, if suggesting people find Christ for them selves is a bad thing than what is a good thing, listening to the fables of men.

I am pointing to Jesus and His will, that will never fail.
Finding His people and encouraging them is our ministry. The great thing about the Lord is the elect will not be defeated. Jesus called us to follow and encourage others that do likewise. If you wanted to spend your time railing at those who do not follow as if this will make a difference, this is like saying to the tide do not come in.

Now there is a sense in which part of our witness is saying I look at the world and believe in the Lord, while you unbeliever, look at the same world and do not see Jesus. This worked in witnessing to a young man, illustrating our perspective often defines our conclusions. If one spends ones time looking for defeat and strife that is what you will find. If one spends ones time looking for blessing and those who lift up the name of Jesus, you will see the people of God. Praise the Lord. Amen.

 

[mjrhealth]

If one spends ones time looking for defeat and strife that is what you will find.

Defeat, death was defeated , Christ and God will never be defeated, as for the Elect, who told you, as I said they would never boast, that is what men in the flesh do.

 

[amadeus]

Count them, 30,000 denominations that have pulled beliefs from the same book, you read. It has been said that if the Bible was a traffic manual, it would not be safe to drive on the roads. There is plenty of scriptural evidence to support the 3 God formula as well as the one God formula. If you are Sola Scriptura, then you are forever limited to chasing your tail. A single circle that goes no where. Too many contradictions for Sola Scriptura to be workable.

But are not the contradictions in the minds of men using men's logic without the leading of the Holy Spirit? I believe that God allows what appears to men as contradictions as part of the sorting/sifting/growing process in God's purpose. Only by following the Holy Spirit may a person come out with God's interpretation for that person. It may seem a bit complicated when we consider that different people are called to be different parts of the Body of Christ and they, each one them, are usually walking on different places on the road toward the Light. No carnal man can look at all these things and come up with God's interpretation alone. God doesn't give everything to any man just to satisfy that man's curiosity or for a completely wrong purpose, such as to prove "I am right and you are wrong" attitudes among even "believers".