The Trinity definition

[ChristisGod]

Your example is entirely predicated on a false email.
My is about a relationship. Please actually address it rather than avoiding it because that would mean you're not addressing my concerns with your foundational point.

then maybe its a bad analogy on my part

 

[ChristisGod]

is this real... meaning a real conversation? or just my imagination on hearing this? God is REAL, and as a matter more real that us.

yes, we hang out with God all the time. do I have scripture for that? YES, Matthew 25:40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." and the King here is God.

I can't believe this. one more, question, "do you Love God?"... yes, well how? is he here to hug or as said hang out with? ANSWER, John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (THAT'S HOW ONE LOVE GOD and Hang out with him).

John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

John 15:10 "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

you cannot prove to another person that you have a relationship with God.

quoting the bible doesn't prove its true

 

[Jane_Doe22]

then maybe its a bad analogy on my part

Could you please address mine?

Does your mistaken facts about Jason somehow mean that you somehow don't have any relationship with Jason at all? Or that some fake doppelganger Jason was grilling you all those hamburgers all of those years?

 

[101G]

you cannot prove to another person that you have a relationship with God.

quoting the bible doesn't prove its true

we walk by FAITH and not by sight........ did you understand that?

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[101G]

it's just amazing that christian are having these kinds of conversatations, if one's life is not change by the new birth, then there is no proof. but if one is born again, then the proof is in their walk. things I used to do, or places I use to go, or things I use to say, I no more do.

Hope that helps.

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[APAK]

Im not downplaying the importance of theology. I actually am quite passionate about the importance of theology and diligent study. I am dismissing the idea that your salvation is based on your ability to correctly answer a theology test.

This is much more than a mere mental theological test of passage for salvation. It has to be 'perfect.' This is a spiritual and heartfelt test that all true believers have already passed. The Spirit provides and testifies that we are saved and are children of his Spirit of the Father, YHWH. We have no input into it at all. Our spirit just knows then we are saved with his gift of saving faith. No man can truly reveal this to us except given this discernment, by the grace of YHWH to another true believer in strong faith and maturity.

The theological and scriptural studies of its exegesis and context, confirm we know the Spirit of God that has supplied his Son's spirit within us.

Of course, we must continue and meditate on our sacred and holy studies always, to refine it, to learn it, to improve upon our understanding of it, and to know this spiritual truth we now possess as it is intended, is truly alive within us.

APAK

 

[DNB]

Its written all over both testaments that God is Plural.

As in polytheism?

 

[101G]

God is Plural, of "HIMSELF". do you agree? yes or no.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Mattathias]

God is Plural, of "HIMSELF". do you agree? yes or no.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

No.

 

[DNB]

Yes, he must mean all three unless he is now straying from his own religion....he must know this...he cannot mean the Son of God ONLY, who was resurrected...that would nullify his triad, 3 person in one, nondescript god.

...it appears that Christophany does not feel that it is necessary to be sound in one's theology. That is, as long as one can supply enough 'proof-text', irrespective of what you're trying to prove, one has rightly divided God's Word.

Thus, it has become very clear to me that Christophany was indoctrinated at a very young age. Before he ever read the Bible on his own, he was told that Jesus was God, and that God is triune. Thus, he has spent the rest of his Biblical endeavors in trying to substantiate that point from Scripture, without ever questioning if there is viably an alternate, and more accurate, sound and glorifying, Christology available through the Bible. His theology is not comprehensive at all.

 

[101G]

No.

ok, let's see if what you say is true, I'll make it simple, John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God."John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

NOW THIS,

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

well Mattathias, is this the same one person in Both scriptures, or is this two separate and distinct persons, ... THINK before you answer.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[APAK]

...it appears that Christophany does not feel that it is necessary to be sound in one's theology. That is, as long as one can supply enough 'proof-text', irrespective of what you're trying to prove, one has rightly divided God's Word.

Thus, it has become very clear to me that Christophany was indoctrinated at a very young age. Before he ever read the Bible on his own, he was told that Jesus was God, and that God is triune. Thus, he has spent the rest of his Biblical endeavors in trying to substantiate that point from Scripture, without ever questioning if there is viably an alternate, and more accurate, sound and glorifying, Christology available through Scripture. His theology is not comprehensive at all.

I also detected an ingrained early age indoctrination...hard to break away from it I guess

 

[Mattathias]

ok, let's see if what you say is true, I'll make it simple, John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God."John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

NOW THIS,

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

well Mattathias, is this the same one person in Both scriptures, or is this two separate and distinct persons, ... THINK before you answer.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

The same one person.

 

[101G]

The same one person.

Well thank you for your honesty. now is not the person in John 1:3 the Son? and is not the LORD all caps the Father... remember Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

so is the LORD, all cap the Father and the Lord is the Son? yes or no... think before you answer.


PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[DNB]

There is as I also believe, only one road to God, but consider just a couple of things on that. First is, how far down the right road a person has traveled [of course some may have been on the wrong road from the start.]? Some at a given moment after meeting the Master are babes in Christ and may know very little and some of what they know may be in error. Some others have served God for a long time and have matured. Not as much slack given to them by God I would hazard to say.

Second, would be what part of the Body of Christ a person is, or is to be? How skillful does a person's toes have to be in order to be a good walker? On the other hand, if a person is the hand, his fingers need a better dexterity than that of toes.

Can even a mature believer still have some errors in what he says or does or even believes? How many people, believers, have already moved from a blurred or dim or darkened vision to a "face to face" vision at any point in time? Does not God consider all of these factors more completely and with regard to any one of us than any man can do? Who but God has all the facts and is able to fairly evaluate them all about each and every one of us? Jesus, I believe, tells us about this here:

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

"Much is given, much is required"! Someone who is in error certainly in that respect has "less" then 100%. Assuming that the Trinity doctrine were completely in error, before rendering a final judgement against a person espousing it, would it not be necessary to know exactly what the man knew and believed in detail and why? This is why, I believe, Jesus also said this:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matt 7:1-3

We can and do have our own opinions and beliefs, but before we open our mouths in condemnation of another who differs, shouldn't we be absolutely that we have all of the facts about the other person and that our vision is not marred even slightly by a beam or even a mote of our own?

Then again...

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

Two things on that verse: One is who knows without a revelation from God that another person does not believe on him? Two is that the verse, to me anyway, clearly states that one who doesn't believe is already condemned. Why need we say anything at all, even if we believe the worst about the person? Is that not ultimately God's business?

What man has God appointed to condemn any other person openly to the world of men? Perhaps He has appointed some people to do that, but I have yet to meet one who satisfied me that he had been given that job by God. I could be wrong about that, but until I hear it from God, I will strive to stand back a bit... What you do, of course, is between you and God.

Yes, I agree with everything that you said amadeus, but I was addressing that one can, hopefully, distinguish the truth as to what leads towards salvation. I agree with you that we may not know who exactly is saved, despite what their beliefs may appear to be, but we can assert confidently that their is no Redemption outside of Jesus Christ, for example.
I guess the only difference that I am making here is that, as Christians, we should be able to affirm what is truth, and what is expected of us from God. But, as you said, we should refrain from making individual judgment calls before the appointed time.

Thus, I believe that one cannot be saved if they feel that Jesus is God, and that God is triune. But, whether or not Christophany is, or will be, saved, is not up to me to decide, for as you said, we do not have enough insight into his circumstances or the reasons behind his convictions.

 

[DNB]

Your entire example here is built upon a email, not a relationship. Here's an example about a relationship:

Jason is in your fantasy football league. He's a great guy, and you hang out every week talking about the game speculating the best pick for next week. He taught you how to better evaluate running backs, and makes you laugh with his jokes. He's a huge Patriots fan, and a decent grill cook. He's also great to talk to and unwind with. You have a relationship with Jason. Three years into this relationship, you find out that you were mistaken about Jason's day job- he's does health insurance, not car sales like you previous thought.

Does your mistaken fact mean that you somehow don't have any relationship with Jason at all? Or that some fake doppelganger Jason was grilling you all those hamburgers all of those years? Because that's what your argument is based on.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, ...unless whether or not that distinction of Jason's vocation has everything to do with your faith in his friendship. If Jason told you that he was a surgeon, and that you were relying on him to heal an ailment, then yes, these factual details are extremely pertinent to your trust in him, and why.

 

[101G]

@Mattathias, let us help you out, listen. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

his OWN Arm is him, yes, the same person. because Isaiah chapter 53 identifies his "OWN ARM". Read Isaiah chapter 53 and get back with me.


PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Mattathias]

Well thank you for your honesty.

I appreciate your kindness but there’s no need to thank me for being honest. I have nothing to gain by being dishonest and everything to lose if I am dishonest.

now is not the person in John 1:3 the Son?

No. The person in John 1:3 is the Father.

and is not the LORD all caps the Father... remember Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

LORD is the Father.

so is the LORD, all cap the Father and the Lord is the Son? yes or no... think before you answer.

Yes and No.

 

[DNB]

Im not downplaying the importance of theology. I actually am quite passionate about the importance of theology and diligent study. I am dismissing the idea that your salvation is based on your ability to correctly answer a theology test.

Maybe not a test per se, but one's convictions are derived from their theological understanding. Yes, I know that you are studious and well informed on these issues, I just don't think that you contended Christophany's position accurately. For, I agree with him that how one perceives God and Jesus, and the dynamics of God's Atonement, is contingent upon one's salvation. Of course, I think that his own words will come against him on Judgment Day, as he feels about us, but that singular point that he is making, to me, is accurate and should be heeded by all, as such. There is a reason that we must profess God's Word in accuracy, that's all I'm saying, and I believe that he was saying. ...other than that, don't listen to any other word that he says .

 

[101G]

I appreciate your kindness but there’s no need to thank me for being honest. I have nothing to gain by being dishonest and everything to lose if I am dishonest.



No. The person in John 1:3 is the Father.



LORD is the Father.



Yes and No.

well this is the firt time hearing that the Word of God is the Father, (which is correct), but not in this scripture, but there is a first time for every thing.

ok, if you say that the "Word" in John 1:1-3 is the Father, then I have one question, John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

so according to YOU, the word/Father was made flesh right? now this, Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." so tell us how was the Father in heaven and yet on earth at the same time, and understand, he who was in that flesh on earth was in a G2758 κενόω kenoo state.

your answer please.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"