Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Bladerunner]

How did you come by that idea? What has redemption got to do with the original marriage tradition?
If you have to sell something at a pawn shop to cover a debt, the price to redeem the item is what you got paid for it…..that is what redemption meant. You buy it back for the set price.

In Israel, if a man got into debt, and he couldn’t pay, he went into service to the creditor until the debt was paid off. If he had a family to support, then one of his children could be offered to service the debt in his place…or a wealthy friend or family member could volunteer to repay the debt…..it was cleared and the man was free to go.

Christ’s redemption follows the latter…..mankind is in debt to God and cannot pay the price to extract ourselves from the situation Adam caused……since it required the same price as what was lost….perfect sinless life…..Jesus was “sent” by his Father and volunteered to pay that price to set us free from the debt of sin and death.

Just as I suspect, you know nothing of God's WORD.

 

[Bladerunner]

Because it doesn't describe adequately like a Greek word agathos.

The KJV uses the Hebrew word :

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
תָּמִים tâmîym, taw-meem'; from H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:—without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

The KJV translates Strong's H8549 in the following manner: without blemish (44x), perfect (18x), upright (8x), without spot (6x), uprightly (4x), whole (4x), sincerely (2x), complete (1x), full (1x), miscellaneous (3x).

 

[face2face]

It's like where Jesus was baptized not because He Himself needed to be, having never sinned, but in order to fulfill all righteousness.

“Suffer it to be so now” – Emphasis is on “now” as he is “found in fashion as a man” Phil 2:8

It's clear you don't understand the Lords nature and to be honest you may never.

F2F

 

[face2face]

I don't see how anyone can read John 1 and not conclude that Jesus pre existed before coming in the flesh and that Jesus is God

Did the physical creation pre-exist? All have come from Logos!
F2F

 

[RLT63]

Debating two clear cases in point is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.
You must hate your mother and father to be a disciple of Christ..
Really? Should we do that?
Should rich people just give up because it is harder for them to get to Heaven? They would save a lot in not giving to charity.

God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son….
If He was pre-existent then He was not His Son in the Old Testament, so it would be God so loved the world that He told the God Yeshua to go jumbo into Miriam’s womb. Or Yeshua converted Himself to Yahweh’s sperm and He cast it into Miriam’s womb.

You've got some weird ideas
Should we cut off our hand or gouge out our eyes?

 

[Wrangler]

I prefer explicit words. For instance, God is not man. Numbers 23:19

The natural man cannot perceive the things of God.

Appeal to Diversion. So, the Scripture that explicitly teaches ‘God is not a man’ are words that can be tossed aside to embrace its contradiction because your IDOL demands it?!

 

[face2face]

Face it....It's all so much horse manure F2F..they have nothing of substance to show. It makes me wonder then if many of the Trinis and Binis really believe that a man was born on that day of God; meaning also they do not believe this man Jesus came (created: conceived and born) in the flesh, of a body like mine although his genetically perfect (as the 1st Adam), as John meant it, without any Triune god model BS in his mind and not inspired by the Spirit.

@Wrangler

I intend to compile a list of statements from this thread that highlight the difficult position Trinitarians have placed themselves in and what I believe is an indefensible doctrine.

I started a list with @Johann as I've asked him numerous times to show evidence and strangely he has not replied which is not his normal Modus Operandi.

Feel free to add to this list as you see the need - or send to me privately thanks

Exploring Trinitarian Anti-Logic​

1. You have failed to show any verse in the Bible which speaks to Jesus being Divine Nature while being tested in sins flesh. (asked at least five times!)
2. Your belief of Christ being incapable of sin removes you from the Atoning Principles which God has placed in His Son, namely his body & blood offering.
3. You cannot explain or define how two natures can co-exist, one being Divine, the other Sins Flesh - how can immortality and mortality exist in the same body?
4. You cannot show a verse anywhere in the Bible that states Christ raised himself.
5. You cannot reconcile or show how the Trinity fits theologically, logically and historically with the Bible’s Jewish origins.
6. You cannot explain how God removed the law of sin and death from our nature, if He did not dwell in it (no victory!).
7. You cannot explain how one person in the God-head can be subject to another and yet all persons be co-equal?

What's interested me most is the section on Jesus being incapable of sin - I sense that is a huge issue for many Trinitarian believers.

F2F

 

[Grailhunter]

You've got some weird ideas
Should we cut off our hand or gouge out our eyes?

Weird Ideas! More like an open mind about what we really do not know and a little bit of humor.

People are debating whether Christ was pre-existent or not. The New Testament scriptures do suggest that, but the Old Testament does not clearly show Christ doing anything. All you have is people employing imaginative interpretation to the Old Testament. In dozens of scriptures Yahweh clearly says He is the only God in the Old Testament and there is no other.

I think the pre-existing Christ that is suggested in the New Testament talks about the characteristic of Gods in their relationship with time itself, in that a God to some degree exist in time….past…present…and future.

Now as far as how God impregnated Miriam? What we actually have are words that are associated with normal reproduction.

Begotten….Conceived….delivery…..Son….Son of God. The scriptures do not say anything about an unusual conception. Without some explanation of any unusual details, all the words point to the normal way a female conceives. Now people can insert an alternate process but that is not biblical. So I am going with the description in the scriptures that it was something like the normal process. If not….could Yeshua actually be the Son of God? Or did God beam him in and again can that be called begotten of God and Christ be the actual Son of God?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Why do our prayers need mediation? What's wrong with approaching the Chief Grand Poohbah in prayer directly (whether or not we add "In Jesus's name" as a closing)?

Good question…..since God is the one who appointed him to that position, why was it necessary?
1 Tim 2:5-6….
”For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time.”

What is a mediator?
One who interposes between two parties at variance to reconcile them; an intercessor; an intermediary agent or go-between.
Job 9:33…
The NSAB renders the Hebrew word “yāḵaḥ” as “umpire”…so we get the picture.…
“There is no umpire between us,
Who may lay his hand upon us both.”

It’s the reason why we address our prayers to the Father “in Jesus’ name”. It is through his appointed mediator that we have access to the Father in prayer because sin is a barrier between us and God.

This fact on its own proves that Jesus is not God, or else we would need a mediator between us and him as well….he is the facilitator of communication between Yahweh and the alienated human race.

 

[RLT63]

Appeal to Diversion. So, the Scripture that explicitly teaches ‘God is not a man’ are words that can be tossed aside to embrace its contradiction because your IDOL demands it?!

That's in the Old Testament
Num 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
It also says that God does not repent but elsewhere it says it repented God that he made man and also that God repented of what he was going to do to Israel when Moses interceded.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Just as I suspect, you know nothing of God's WORD.

Was this response meant to answer my question?
I’ll ask it again…. What does the marriage arrangement have to do with redemption?
I know God’s word well after over 50 years of careful study…..so let’s see how well you know it….?

 

[RLT63]

Weird Ideas! More like an open mind about what we really do not know and a little bit of humor.

People are debating whether Christ was pre-existent or not. The New Testament scriptures do suggest that, but the Old Testament does not clearly show Christ doing anything. All you have is people employing imaginative interpretation to the Old Testament. In dozens of scriptures Yahweh clearly says He is the only God in the Old Testament and there is no other.

I think the pre-existing Christ that is suggested in the New Testament talks about the characteristic of Gods in their relationship with time itself, in that a God to some degree exist in time….past…present…and future.

Now as far as how God impregnated Miriam? What we actually have are words that are associated with normal reproduction.

Begotten….Conceived….delivery…..Son….Son of God. The scriptures do not say anything about an unusual conception. Without some explanation of any unusual details, all the words point to the normal way a female conceives. Now people can insert an alternate process but that is not biblical. So I am going with the description in the scriptures that it was something like the normal process. If not….could Yeshua actually be the Son of God? Or did God beam him in and again can that be called begotten of God and Christ be the actual Son of God?

Christ was born of a virgin was he not? So it was not the usual process. It was the immaculate conception

 

[Wrangler]

highlight the difficult position Trinitarians have placed themselves in

Built on the basics.

1. Why does it not concern you that not only is the trinity doctrine complexly missing but contrary to what Scripture actually teaches? (There is one God, the Father)
2. How can you claim the 3-persons of the trinity are equal when they are demonstrably not?! (God the Father gives an inheritance but has only one immutable nature; Jesus receives the inheritance but has 2 natures that change over time; the HS has no name or authority)
3. Explain ubiquitous juxtaposition. Just one example. The resurrected Jesus sitting at God’s throne in heaven with all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God. Rev 1:1 teaches that God - in his unitarian nature - gives the revelation to Jesus.
4. Why do trinitarians put a burden on people coming to Christ; namely, assert you cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in the trinity; when our Lord did put such a burden on God’s children? (I’ve been planning to start a thread dedicated to this proposition).

 

[RLT63]

Built on the basics.

1. Why does it not concern you that not only is the trinity doctrine complexly missing but contrary to what Scripture actually teaches? (There is one God, the Father)
2. How can you claim the 3-persons of the trinity are equal when they are demonstrably not?! (God the Father gives an inheritance but has only one immutable nature; Jesus receives the inheritance but has 2 natures that change over time; the HS has no name or authority)
3. Explain ubiquitous juxtaposition. Just one example. The resurrected Jesus sitting at God’s throne in heaven with all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God. Rev 1:1 teaches that God - in his unitarian nature - gives the revelation to Jesus.
4. Why do trinitarians put a burden on people coming to Christ; namely, assert you cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in the trinity; when our Lord did put such a burden on God’s children? (I’ve been planning to start a thread dedicated to this proposition).

I don't think it's necessary to understand the Trinity or the nature of the Godhead to be saved.

 

[David in NJ]

Even the non-JW translation of verse 14 is much worse PD. That's what I speaking about. There should be no 'I am ' for who the Almighty one is called in this verse if you find the Hebrew for this expression.

Ok, this is the gist of it...I'm sure it is new to you.

When Moses asked God the name he should use to refer to Him, God told him, “I AM WHO I AM.”

Moses was to tell the Israelites I am what I am or will be, was going to free them from slavery.

Error 1: The English translations of Exodus 3:14 for what they place in as 'I AM' is incorrect and deceitful. The following should be its translation from the Hebrew language.

View attachment 55449
YHWH said to Moses in English, ‘I am (being) that/who I am/shall be.’ It is the personal expression of the Almighty one. This expression reads in Hebrew as, ‘Ehyeh asher ehyeh,’ you shall say to the people in Hebrew, 'Ehyeh has sent me to you.’ It is translated into English as ‘I will/shall be,’ or ‘I am existing.’

Note: The divine name of the Almighty is YHWH not Ehyeh asher ehyeh, or Ehyeh! Although is does describe or protract the meaning of it.

Error 2: Many also compare the English incomplete translations as the ‘I am’ here, in this Exodus 3: verse 14, with John 8:58. They conclude that Jesus called himself YHWH because he also said ‘I am.’ in John 8:58. For the two errors I've indicated already, this is a gross and very misleading error. It is sheer dishonesty is mixing them together to forge a corruption of the Hebrew and Greek languages of these two distinct and different terms with quite different meanings.

Further....
In John 8:58, Jesus’ words are translated in the common Greek expression as ‘ego eimi,’ that means in English ‘I am.’ A very common expression used by ANYONE!...Even for me and for you if someone needed to know who, and the only who of the subject of discussion.

The Greek translation of this verse 14 of Exodus 3, in English, is ‘I am being’ or ‘I am who exists’ from ‘ego eimi ho on’ and not ‘ego eimi.’ And further, it is in Greek, ‘ho on’ or in English, ‘who exists’ has sent me to you, not ‘I am.’

The entire OT scriptures call the Word that was Elohim as YHWH

 

[Aunty Jane]

Christ was born of a virgin was he not? So it was not the usual process. It was the immaculate conception

Amazing how people think that the immaculate conception was about Jesus……it’s actually a Catholic teaching claiming that Mary was immaculately conceived so that she could give birth to God…..

Good grief! Is there no end to the drivel…?

 

[RLT63]

Amazing how people think that the immaculate conception was about Jesus……it’s actually a Catholic teaching claiming that Mary was immaculately conceived so that she could give birth to God…..

Goof grief! Is there no end to the drivel…?

I know what Catholics say but they are mistaken. Mary is not the immaculate conception, even if they coined the phrase they have it wrong

 

[Grailhunter]

Christ was born of a virgin was he not? So it was not the usual process. It was the immaculate conception

I scriptures do not associate maculate conception with Christ. The Catholics associate maculate conception with Miriam. And that is a topic on it own associated with the false doctrine of Original Sin.

As with the phrase “virgin Mary” or virgin birth they do not appear in the scriptures and the Catholics considered Miriam a virgin before and after the delivery of Christ and for the rest of her life…..

Miriam told the angel that she had not known a man. But the scriptures do not call Miriam a virgin after she conceived. In that time period most men took women that were virgins.

 

[RLT63]

I scriptures do not associate maculate conception with Christ. The Catholics associate maculate conception with Miriam. And that is a topic on it own associated with the false doctrine of Original Sin.

As with the phrase “virgin Mary” or virgin birth they do not appear in the scriptures and the Catholics considered Miriam a virgin before and after the delivery of Christ and for the rest of her life…..

Miriam told the angel that she had not known a man. But the scriptures do not call Miriam a virgin after she conceived. In that time period most men took women that were virgins.

Catholics are mistaken about this, it doesn't apply to Mary but Jesus was born of a virgin
Tools
Mat 1:24 - Yosef arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife to himself;
Tools
Mat 1:25 - and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Yeshua.

Isa 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,and shall call his name Immanuel
Virgin is meant as one who has not had sex and here does not mean young girl. What kind of sign would it be if it said The Lord himself shall give you a sign, a young girl shall conceive and
have a son?
Without a virgin birth there is no sinless sacrifice for our sins and we are all lost .

 

[MonoBiblical]

The KJV uses the Hebrew word :

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
תָּמִים tâmîym, taw-meem'; from H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:—without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

The KJV translates Strong's H8549 in the following manner: without blemish (44x), perfect (18x), upright (8x), without spot (6x), uprightly (4x), whole (4x), sincerely (2x), complete (1x), full (1x), miscellaneous (3x).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS G18:
ἀγαθός, -ή, -όν, (akin to ἄγαμαι to wonder at, think highly of, ἀγαστός admirable, as explained by Plato, Crat., p. 412 c. [others besides; cf. Donaldson, New Crat. § 323]), in general denotes "perfectus,... qui habet in se ac facit omnia quae habere et facere debet pro notione nominis, officio ac lege" (Irmisch ad Herodian, 1, 4, p. 134), excelling in any respect, distinguished, good. It can be predicated of persons, things, conditions, qualities and affections of the soul, deeds, times and seasons. To this general significance can be traced back all those senses which the word gathers from the connection in which it stands;

[Mat 19:17 KJV] 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[Mar 10:18 KJV] 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.
[Luk 18:19 KJV] 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

Hence, ideal or perfect or infallible is implied.