This really grabbed me today!

[stunnedbygrace]

You have made your choice and that is entirely your prerogative.....just remember that all choices have consequences.

Also remember that the majority are on the wrong road. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Ah, ah, ah, no you don’t. YOU have made the choice, not me. I have said both verses/sets of verses are true.

 

[Lambano]

Calm and measured reason will not work here but I love your peacemaking heart.
Edit: that was Brakelite - calm and reason works with him. I failed to note who you were responding to.

Thank you, but I also want to embrace Christo Rei and Aunty Jane, because I can't grasp the distinction between "personhood" and "being" either. One of the theological books I've read said that you can't explain the Trinity doctrine without getting into Arianism, Sabellianism, Monarchal Modalism, Polytheism, or six other kinds of "heresy". The doctrine seems about as chemically stable as nitroglycerine. So I'm willing to cut people some slack, if they'll cut me some.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Thank you, but I also want to embrace Christo Rei and Aunty Jane, because I can't grasp the distinction between "personhood" and "being" either. One of the theological books I've read said that you can't explain the Trinity doctrine without getting into Arianism, Sabellianism, Monarchal Modalism, Polytheism, or six other kinds of "heresy". The doctrine seems about as chemically stable as nitroglycerine. So I'm willing to cut people some slack, if they'll cut me some.

I agree the doctrine is untenable.

 

[Lambano]

I agree the doctrine is untenable.

I will add the historical note that the debate at Nicaea became so heated, fist-fights broke out, with St. Nicholas of Myra, he of Santa Claus fame, punching out Arias.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I will add the historical note that the debate at Nicaea became so heated, fist-fights broke out, with St. Nicholas of Myra, he of Santa Claus fame, punching out Arias.

Well that’s not a surprise. Who hit who first? Was it the trinitarian or the one fighting against it?

 

[Lambano]

Well that’s not a surprise. Who hit who first? Was it the trinitarian or the one fighting against it?

St. Nick sucker-punched Arias. Two minutes for roughing, five for fighting.

(Nicholas was the Trinitarian.)

 

[stunnedbygrace]

St. Nick sucker-punched Arias. Two minutes for roughing, five for fighting.

(Nicholas was the Trinitarian.)

Ah, I thought it would be so. So satans (who was the very first narcissist) workings through men can be seen more clearly. Narcissism goes into a rage at anyone daring to oppose it or uncover its tactics. Either open rage or covert and passive aggressive rage.

 

[Lambano]

If I remember right, Arias's claim to heretical fame was that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father, but was begotten later.

My brother, who was studying in seminary for an MD or a ThD (which he still hasn't gotten; life got in the way), sent me a set of bubble-gum trading cards depicting some of the great theological influences in the history of Christendom. One of the "teams" is called "The Heretics". I'll have to dig up my Arias card. Hey, Lifelong Sinner, what will you trade me for "The Reformers" star John Calvin, mint condition?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If I remember right, Arias's claim to heretical fame was that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father, but was begotten later.

And that’s the argument we still see here. An insistence on either/or with scripture rather than both sets of verses being true. This has always been. They argued which of three scriptures were correct in the past, as to where Messiah would come from. But when it played out in time, all three were where He came from, at different times. He was born in the one, taken to the other, called out of the other. Yet the arguments were there that all three scriptures could not be true.
Search the scriptures and see for yourself, no prophet comes from thus and thus.
Does anything good come from Nazareth?
And so on.

And now we have: both cannot be true. He is either God as John says and other scriptures say OR He was begotten of God in human form, but both cannot be true.
But the passage I gave says: He is the beginning AND the firstborn. Is, was, and is to come.

 

[Lambano]

And that’s the argument we still see here. An insistence on either/or with scripture rather than both sets of verses being true. This has always been.

Yeah, that principle of non-contradiction is built into the very rules of logic we use to argue with. (A & -A) = F. One theologian concludes that we need to throw out Aristotelian logic, which is in itself logical, because if your assumptions lead to a contradiction, you need to reexamine your assumptions. One of the assumptions is that the rules of logic are true. But if you throw out the rules of logic, you cut-off the means of all future argumentation.

So then you have to ask, "what other assumptions am I making that might not be true?"

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yeah, that principle of non-contradiction is built into the very rules of logic we use to argue with. (A & -A) = F. One theologian concludes that we need to throw out Aristotelian logic, which is in itself logical, because if your assumptions lead to a contradiction, you need to reexamine your assumptions. One of the assumptions is that the rules of logic are true. But if you throw out the rules of logic, you cut-off the means of all future argumentation.

But there IS no contradiction with God. Both must be true if He has said both things. So the assumption you must go on is that ALL God has said is true. If you don’t start with that surety, you will go nowhere good.

Here is a riddle: Never answer a fool according to his folly. Always answer a fool according to his folly.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

But how does God sit beside himself?

Indeed! How DOES God sit beside Himself??
And HOW can a man be born again? Can he crawl back into his mother’s womb?
And HOW can: my Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The same argument goes on concerning endtimes verses.
Does He come suddenly when you are least expecting it?
Or does He come in the clouds when every eye will see Him even those who crucified Him?
Or does He come from Bozrah with robes stained red?
He came from three different places at His birth. And Eccles says God causes things to repeat. So why could He not come again from three different places at three different times again?

And does He remove the wicked first or does He remove the righteous first?

 

[Cristo Rei]

And here’s why I didn’t want to argue with either of you, it begins to sound insane to me and it begins to look like a passive aggressive control thing with words like “blasphemous” thrown in and a gaslighting argument that I am picking which verse is true when I’m not doing that but am saying they are both true. But you won’t see that I have said they both are true even if I say it again and put the evidence of that in writing before you five more times and will keep insisting I’m picking one and saying the other is not true when I’m actually not doing that. Then comes the “word soup” problem and anger when I won’t validate you. This is the whole crazy making cycle of a narcissist. That’s how I know I’m not even dealing with you but am dealing with the covert tactics of someone stronger than you or I.

Wow ok then don't worry about it geez
All that rubbish and you didn't even answer my question

 

[Cristo Rei]

No, it's a dumb question and doesn't belong in an intelligent discussion. We all agree, although perhaps not on the timing, that Jesus is the Son of God. So when we are discussing praying to the Father... Sitting next to the Father... Etc etc etc, we are talking about two distinct individual beings. And we are talking about relationship. The question is... Is the Son also God, as well as the Father? After all, are they not one.
Saying nonsense that God is talking to God, sitting next to God, etc, does nothing toward discovering truth, because it's designed only to sounds clever and make a mockery of others posts.

Makes no sense to me

 

[Cristo Rei]

Many of you people are so full of yourselves you can't even answer a simple question without blowing up... Pride... Lucifers favourite sin...

I know I'm near the truth when such simple questions create such anger

At least I admit I could be wrong not like many of you who are so sure of yourselves but offer no explanations or hollow arguments that make no sense at all.

At least one of you understood my confusion but then she just went on a personal attack after I asked if she was sure about herself.

Like the father is also the son. Such mental gymnastics to reach that which is illogical. A father has a son not himself, 2 people not 1.

Funny thing is that not even the RCC says they understand so your attempts are futile and full of pride. If they don't know then you have absolutely no idea

I think we will find our way, whether we think Jesus is God's son, or if we think Jesus is God in flesh. So I'll leave you rude morons to talk about it and attack anyone else who questions your twisted thinking

Those who claim to be infallible are the most fallible

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Wow ok then don't worry about it geez
All that rubbish and you didn't even answer my question

I have answered your question. Both sets of scripture are true. You have been made to think only one set can be true. If a dog is white with black spots, is the dog white or is the dog black? The rule is he can’t be both, so only one answer is correct. So choose your answer, Rei. Do you see the impossible and quite silly position I have put you in with my rule? Discard my silly rule and answer the question truthfully. The dog is both black AND white. Don’t let my silly rule rule you!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Many of you people are so full of yourselves you can't even answer a simple question without blowing up... Pride... Lucifers favourite sin...

I know I'm near the truth when such simple questions create such anger

At least I admit I could be wrong not like many of you who are so sure of yourselves but offer no explanations or hollow arguments that make no sense at all.

At least one of you understood my confusion but then she just went on a personal attack after I asked if she was sure about herself.

Like the father is also the son. Such mental gymnastics to reach that which is illogical. A father has a son not himself, 2 people not 1.

Funny thing is that not even the RCC says they understand so your attempts are futile and full of pride. If they don't know then you have absolutely no idea

I think we will find our way, whether we think Jesus is God's son, or if we think Jesus is God in flesh. So I'll leave you rude morons to talk about it and attack anyone else who questions your twisted thinking

Those who claim to be infallible are the most fallible

Who is angry with you, Rei? You say your question has made someone angry but by your last post, it seems you are the angry one. Don’t project that onto me. I am not angry, nor have I answered in anger.

 

[bbyrd009]

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.
So he is first in everything.
19 For God in all his fullness
was pleased to live in Christ,
20 and through him God reconciled
everything to himself.
He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth
by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.

The visible image of God.
Existed before anything was created, even everything in heaven.
Everything was created through Him and for Him.
He holds all of creation together.
He is the beginning AND the firstborn.

How can anyone say He is not God? It flummoxes me.
I do understand that in His human form He had to rely completely on God just as we do. But I’ll be darned if I can understand how anyone can read this and come away saying He is not God…

I said “you are Elohim”
i dont know how anyone can read this and come away saying that you are not God

 

[Brakelite]

The paucity in evidence against the deity of Christ is reflected in the assumptions made by the antitrinitarians...
They assume a denial of the trinity is tantamount to a denial of Christ's deity: not so.
They also make the assumption that an acceptance of the deity of Christ must of necessity mean an acceptance also of the trinity. Not so.
I reject the trinity as formulated in the creeds for reasons other than whether Christ is recognized as deity.
Christ is God's begotten Son. Begotten before creation. His Sonship is the greatest evidence for His divinity and deity. His Sonship is also one of the principle reasons I reject the trinity as formulated. Being the Son does not make Him co-equal in every sense, as demonstrated by His obedience to the Father in coming to this planet to die. Jesus was subject to His Father's authority. This was apparent throughout His life. And if Jesus had a co-equal eternal existence in the past, how can He be Son? This is explained in the creeds as 'eternally begotten' which makes no sense whatsoever, which in con next with the trinity, is hardly surprising.