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

[DNB]

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.

My point is that evidence is subjective, ...ask any conspiracy theorist.
Contradictions can be just perceived as such.
Sorry, a 3 god, or 3 in 1, or 3 person godhead cannot be substantiated from the Bible. Not from a comprehensive view. Yes, anyone can find anything, with just a verse or two, or a fraction in comparison to the Bible as a whole. No one should ever build doctrine in such a manner.
I believe that I set forth fundamental reasons why Scripture does not impart anything but God the Father as one. Nor are 3 gods plausible nor fathomable, and thus, the concept is antithetical to divinity.
Sola scriptura expresses the providence of God, and the sufficiency of Scripture. 30,000 denominations only denotes the lack of wisdom, and perversion of man.
For, I ask you rhetorically, Paul says that 'salvation is by faith alone', and James says that 'faith without works is dead'. Jesus said '...if your hand offends you, cut it off...', and also said that '...all sins come from the heart, not what goes into a man's mouth...'
Who are you going to blame for the perceived controversy, man or Scripture?

 

[Grailhunter]

My point is that evidence is subjective, ...ask any conspiracy theorist.
Contradictions can be just perceived as such.
Sorry, a 3 god, or 3 in 1, or 3 person godhead cannot be substantiated from the Bible. Not from a comprehensive view. Yes, anyone can find anything, with just a verse or two, or a fraction in comparison to the Bible as a whole. No one should ever build doctrine in such a manner.
I believe that I set forth fundamental reasons why Scripture does not impart anything but God the Father as one. Nor are 3 gods plausible nor fathomable, and thus, the concept is antithetical to divinity.
Sola scriptura expresses the providence of God, and the sufficiency of Scripture. 30,000 denominations only denotes the lack of wisdom, and perversion of man.
For, I ask you rhetorically, Paul says that 'salvation is by faith alone', and James says that 'faith without works is dead'. Jesus said '...if your hand offends you, cut it off...', and also said that '...all sins come from the heart, not what goes into a man's mouth...'
Who are you going to blame for the perceived controversy, man or Scripture?

See your tail....chase it!

 

[DNB]

See your tail....chase it!

You're making excuses to justify both, the credibility that you give to extra-biblical sources, and your consequent belief in irrational and implausible entities. It is you who is chasing the wind by not establishing a hermeneutical discipline, and mutually not recognizing the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[Grailhunter]

You're making excuses to justify both, the credibility that you give to extra-biblical sources, and your consequent belief in irrational and implausible entities. It is you who is chasing the wind by not establishing a hermeneutical discipline, and mutually not recognizing the inspiration of Scripture.

You are the one chasing and I am the one watching. Extra biblical sources is Christianity in motion through history. Neither God nor Christianity died at the close of the Bible. The value of those sources depend on what they are.

Eisenstein said it, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity. I just call it stupid. So continue on as you have and see if you get a different result....We can review it later.

 

[Davy]

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.

In relation to the rest of the subject of your posts narrows the context of what you said at the first.

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.

Uh, that of course is a false idea that The Father exalted Jesus merely because Jesus loved The Father. You obviously have not read John 17, nor even John 1.

The ONLY way Jesus could OBEY The Father, being Perfect and without sin, is for Jesus to be co-equal with The Father, which Jesus being co-equal status with The Father is exactly what Scripture says...

Phil 2:5-11
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
KJV

Jesus' Own Words...

John 5:19-24
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth: and He will shew Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father Which hath sent Him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him That sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
KJV

 

[Davy]

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.

GOD is NOT... the author of 'death'. You are not understanding enough of God's Word to grasp about Satan's sin which caused... the concept of death!

This you said, and I quote:
"Even the concept of the Tree of Life, denotes that God had established the principle of life and death well before the thought had ever crossed man's mind. The devil has no power, to either give or take life, unless God establishes and permits it.
Death has no power on God, because God controls it, therefore, God dying on a cross is meaningless, inefficacious and impotent."

You clearly don't understand what timeline it was with the Tree of Life in God's Garden when Adam and Eve were made flesh. When do you think Satan became the adversary, being the tempter against Adam and Eve in God's Garden of Eden? and we know that serpent that tempted Eve was indeed Satan himself, per Revelation 12:9.

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.

That is also something you apparently have no real Biblical knowledge of. Again, just when did you say it was that Satan first rebelled against God in the time of old? what rebellion against God was it that Satan did, with drawing a third of the stars (angels) to earth, per Revelation 12:3-4?

 

[DNB]

You are the one chasing and I am the one watching. Extra biblical sources is Christianity in motion through history. Neither God nor Christianity died at the close of the Bible. The value of those sources depend on what they are.

Eisenstein said it, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity. I just call it stupid. So continue on as you have and see if you get a different result....We can review it later.

I'm sorry GH, but it appears that we are talking about two very different things right now?
Debating an issue may seem futile, and I agree with you, depending on the players of course. But, establishing God-given doctrine is an objective and uncompromising endeavour.
Again, are you saying that one cannot ever justify their point, due to the myriad of sources of information? Or, that Biblical exegesis (note the key word Biblical), is open to interpretation?
You really haven't stipulated where your specific contention lies, you've just offered a few criticisms without making a conclusion or resolve? I profoundly disagree with your 3 God theory, and your inclusive view of uninspired or non-canonical text. But, are you saying that you can't prove your point, regardless, because it's too subjective, or that we first both have to agree on the sources of information from where we derive our conclusions?

 

[DNB]

The ONLY way Jesus could OBEY The Father, being Perfect and without sin, is for Jesus to be co-equal with The Father, which Jesus being co-equal status with The Father is exactly what Scripture says...

Where in the flippin' world did you get that notion from, kindergarten class?
What possible point could it have for a being to love or obey himself, even if it were possible? How is the Atonement effectuated under such a dynamic, God propitiating God?
You entirely misquoted the Scripture of the Carmen Christi, ...for the ultimate point was about the humility of Christ, and his subsequent exaltation. These two critical points are entirely absurd and meaningless, if Christ was already God.
You do see the point, right?

 

[DNB]

GOD is NOT... the author of 'death'. You are not understanding enough of God's Word to grasp about Satan's sin which caused... the concept of death!

This you said, and I quote:
"Even the concept of the Tree of Life, denotes that God had established the principle of life and death well before the thought had ever crossed man's mind. The devil has no power, to either give or take life, unless God establishes and permits it.
Death has no power on God, because God controls it, therefore, God dying on a cross is meaningless, inefficacious and impotent."

You clearly don't understand what timeline it was with the Tree of Life in God's Garden when Adam and Eve were made flesh. When do you think Satan became the adversary, being the tempter against Adam and Eve in God's Garden of Eden? and we know that serpent that tempted Eve was indeed Satan himself, per Revelation 12:9.

That is also something you apparently have no real Biblical knowledge of. Again, just when did you say it was that Satan first rebelled against God in the time of old? what rebellion against God was it that Satan did, with drawing a third of the stars (angels) to earth, per Revelation 12:3-4?

Davy, whatever the case may be, whatever the timeline of Lucifer's fall was, the penalty was ordained by God. You are taking for granted that death comes from Satan, simply because that's the historical cliché. And just to explain, when this expression is used in a viable way, it means that following Satan leads to death. That is, Satan is not an author nor creator, he cannot initiate something that was never there to begin with.
Lucifer does not dictate the penalty, God established what the wages of sin are, no other being has that potency or authority.
Even Hades, Sheol or Ghenna were not created by Satan, were they? God punished countless people throughout the bible, with death. It was not Lucifer that either gave God this option, or allowed Him to do so. God gives both life and death as He sees fit, as He created it to be.

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm sorry GH, but it appears that we are talking about two very different things right now?
Debating an issue may seem futile, and I agree with you, depending on the players of course. But, establishing God-given doctrine is an objective and uncompromising endeavour.
Again, are you saying that one cannot ever justify their point, due to the myriad of sources of information? Or, that Biblical exegesis (note the key word Biblical), is open to interpretation?
You really haven't stipulated where your specific contention lies, you've just offered a few criticisms without making a conclusion or resolve? I profoundly disagree with your 3 God theory, and your inclusive view of uninspired or non-canonical text. But, are you saying that you can't prove your point, regardless, because it's too subjective, or that we first both have to agree on the sources of information from where we derive our conclusions?

I'm sorry GH, but it appears that we are talking about two very different things right now?
Debating an issue may seem futile, and I agree with you, depending on the players of course. But, establishing God-given doctrine is an objective and uncompromising endeavour.

You see what you are doing? It’s the other persons fault…the other person makes it futile. You and your ball of scriptures are right, and they and their ball of scriptures are wrong. That constitutes a perpetual division and cyclic debate…..chasing your tail. This is the topic. Why chase your tail.

It is more correct to ask the question why? Why are there two sets of opposing scriptures?

What generally happens is that you disregard or explain away the meaning of their scriptures and they reciprocate and disregard or explain away the meaning of your scriptures. That is what why I call it scriptural dodge ball. Nothing gets accomplished or resolved. No one learns anything.

Shortly after coming to this forum I would find people going round and round on topics, so I would list all the scriptures that were pertinent to each side of the debate. They still did not catch on.

And this is exactly, historically speaking, what has happened to Christ’s Church. People don’t ask the questions they should. People don’t ask, how can this be a never ending debate? Different people, different time periods over and over again, doing the same thing.

Again, are you saying that one cannot ever justify their point, due to the myriad of sources of information? Or, that Biblical exegesis (note the key word Biblical), is open to interpretation?

Each side justifies their point. From there a person can choose what side they believe in. But if you just choose a side, if each of you just choose a side, then both of you could be wrong. There maybe a reason that there are opposing scriptures or there maybe a meaning in why they seem to oppose each other.

The other side of the coin is that I am not applying this is true of every topic.

You really haven't stipulated where your specific contention lies, you've just offered a few criticisms without making a conclusion or resolve?

lol, I am not a troll. I am not criticizing, I am trying to make you think! Prove a point? lol The point has already been proven when the Bible was written, now it your job to understand it.

I profoundly disagree with your 3 God theory, and your inclusive view of uninspired or non-canonical text. But, are you saying that you can't prove your point, regardless, because it's too subjective, or that we first both have to agree on the sources of information from where we derive our conclusions?

I take no offense that you disagree with the 3 Gods formula. I have as you say “proven” the 3 Gods formula in Grailhunter’s corner and it is strictly biblical….

Again proving a point is not that hard, but if you have opposing scriptures proving an opposing point, you should look into why that is.

During the era of the early Church there were several formulas running around in regard the connectivity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. You could make a good sized list of them. From there it has been a continual debate...the question is why? If you do not ask, nothing gets proven, no one is convinced, and no one learns anything.

 

[DNB]

I'm sorry GH, but it appears that we are talking about two very different things right now?
Debating an issue may seem futile, and I agree with you, depending on the players of course. But, establishing God-given doctrine is an objective and uncompromising endeavour.

You see what you are doing? It’s the other persons fault…the other person makes it futile. You and your ball of scriptures are right, and they and their ball of scriptures are wrong. That constitutes a perpetual division and cyclic debate…..chasing your tail. This is the topic. Why chase your tail.

It is more correct to ask the question why? Why are there two sets of opposing scriptures?

What generally happens is that you disregard or explain away the meaning of their scriptures and they reciprocate and disregard or explain away the meaning of your scriptures. That is what why I call it scriptural dodge ball. Nothing gets accomplished or resolved. No one learns anything.

Shortly after coming to this forum I would find people going round and round on topics, so I would list all the scriptures that were pertinent to each side of the debate. They still did not catch on.

And this is exactly, historically speaking, what has happened to Christ’s Church. People don’t ask the questions they should. People don’t ask, how can this be a never ending debate? Different people, different time periods over and over again, doing the same thing.

Again, are you saying that one cannot ever justify their point, due to the myriad of sources of information? Or, that Biblical exegesis (note the key word Biblical), is open to interpretation?

Each side justifies their point. From there a person can choose what side they believe in. But if you just choose a side, if each of you just choose a side, then both of you could be wrong. There maybe a reason that there are opposing scriptures or there maybe a meaning in why they seem to oppose each other.

The other side of the coin is that I am not applying this is true of every topic.

You really haven't stipulated where your specific contention lies, you've just offered a few criticisms without making a conclusion or resolve?

lol, I am not a troll. I am not criticizing, I am trying to make you think! Prove a point? lol The point has already been proven when the Bible was written, now it your job to understand it.

I profoundly disagree with your 3 God theory, and your inclusive view of uninspired or non-canonical text. But, are you saying that you can't prove your point, regardless, because it's too subjective, or that we first both have to agree on the sources of information from where we derive our conclusions?

I take no offense that you disagree with the 3 Gods formula. I have as you say “proven” the 3 Gods formula in Grailhunter’s corner and it is strictly biblical….

Again proving a point is not that hard, but if you have opposing scriptures proving an opposing point, you should look into why that is.

During the era of the early Church there were several formulas running around in regard the connectivity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. You could make a good sized list of them. From there it has been a continual debate...the question is why? If you do not ask, nothing gets proven, no one is convinced, and no one learns anything.

GH, thank you for your response, but sorry, you are just not being assertive enough. But, fortunately, you implied something affirmative within your evasive explanation, that I've managed to extrapolate a conviction somewhere. (excuse the bluntness).
You said that '...you have proven the 3 god formula..' Great, you finally took a stance, got off the fence, and just made an affirmation about something! This is incumbent for all Bible students, ...or, in your case, gods-fearing people (since your not sola scriptura), that is, to establish dogma.
...that is what you did, right, or are you just stating an opinion that you feel is open to be undermined? You are really speaking in riddles?

I emphatically believe that only the Father is God. And that to deny this, is condemning.
That no human is currently in heaven, but Christ.
That man does not have a fallen nature.
That salvation is only through Christ Jesus.
.....

I understand most of the opposing arguments for all my convictions above, but still hold to them as God-given truth.
Why in the world are you telling me to still consider the other side, and to not be so dogmatic???? That is, such an elementary and obvious exegesis to hold to? Meaning, the first part has already been done, and thus the 2nd part just naturally follows.
You are the one going in circles, if you don't just make up your mind on an issue. 30000 denominations can't all be right, 5 different opinions cannot all be correct, truth is not ambiguous nor contradictory.

You spent 3/4 of your explanation stating the obvious, i.e. people have differing opinions. We get that, no one ever disagreed, no need to repeat it anymore.
Again, and again, and again, what the heck are you getting at? Are you not sure about anything?

 

[farouk]

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.

The end of Matthew 28 contains the baptismal formula, referring to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The NT is full of this foundational truth.

 

[kcnalp]

Your post demonstrate why going by the Bible alone is fatally flawed ...

Please elaborate.

 

[DNB]

The end of Matthew 28 contains the baptismal formula, referring to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The NT is full of this foundational truth.

You're jumping to conclusions farouk. No one denies the existence of all 3 entities, and how they each are instrumental to salvation. The denial comes from claiming that each person or entity is God, ...an incomprehensible, implausible and ridiculous notion to have 3 all-powerful beings in one godhead. You get that, right?

 

[farouk]

You're jumping to conclusions farouk. No one denies the existence of all 3 entities, and how they each are instrumental to salvation. The denial comes from claiming that each person or entity is God, ...an incomprehensible, implausible and ridiculous notion to have 3 all-powerful beings in one godhead. You get that, right?

We are evidently unable to communicate on this aspect of clear revelation in Scripture. Period.

 

[kcnalp]

Jesus was and still is the Word who was with God and is God and became flesh. But if you don't want to believe that it's ok. You can believe what you choose.

Amen!

 

[kcnalp]

He isnt, so what,no requirement for salvation, you know that bit, did He not say YE are Gods, get over it thats mens religions and polluted doctrines.

John 1 The Word was God.

Umm, yes He is God.

 

[kcnalp]

And by the way no where are we required to believe Jesus is God,

Then you have a different Jesus.

Jeremiah 17:10 (NKJV)
10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings. Revelation 2:18-23 (NKJV)
'These things says the Son of God, … 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

 

[mjrhealth]

Then you have a different Jesus.

Jeremiah 17:10 (NKJV)
10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings. Revelation 2:18-23 (NKJV)
'These things says the Son of God, … 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Nope same one that said.

Joh_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

so obviously Jesus according to you is lying.

 

[janc2]

John 1 The Word was God.

Umm, yes He is God.

Yes, he is God, since the Word of God is God's expression. My word is also me. Every person has his own word. In this way we are like God.
So the Word is not another separate person. Before the creation there were no three gods like the Trinitarians believe or a created being like Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but only one God, he was alone, and through his word that came out of his mouth he started to create. He spoke and it was.