Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[MonoBiblical]

Ok... So what does that have to do with any of my Post?

Don't include me with youir main stream BS.... Because I spanked the crap out of your John 1:1 post..... Do I need to repost it? I have no problem with that.... I have converted Sooo many with that post.... You need to see it again?

You can let go of your spiritual ankles now!

Think of it as weak, like a Jehovah's Witness without education.

 

[David in NJ]

Ok... So what does that have to do with any of my Post?

Don't include me with youir main stream BS.... Because I spanked the crap out of your John 1:1 post..... Do I need to repost it? I have no problem with that.... I have converted Sooo many with that post.... You need to see it again?

You can let go of your spiritual ankles now!

You think you are more knowledgeable of the Scriptures then the Holy Spirit who Authored them???

 

[APAK]

I see no problem with John 1:1

What I see -- as a pattern -- is that clear passages that hint to God the Son become victim to all kind of gymnastics to deny its meaning up to the point of called as mistranslated, or worse, forgeries by the Roman Catholic Church. The only real forgery I have seen is the Johannine Comma. I did my research.



The thing for you to figure out is that A always has been AB by revelation, Thomas - My Lord and my God!

That last statement ..AB by revelation) is a real crafty move and a twist of mixing context together deliberately by using that particular part of scripture John 1:1 and the analogy I introduced and I wrote, and then used it in another chapter of John for a completely different thought and context. That does not work I'm afraid. You could do this all day long and this game of hide and seek will never present the truth you might want to know in the end.

If you want to know about A cannot equal B again in a new area of scripture, and yes by scripture revelation then ask me to explain Thomas' joy and cry. It will take a few brain cells to understand it, with knowing the full context. So reserve a few of your cells for it. Let me know if you want me to explain why A is still not equal to B in John 20:28

(Joh 20:24) But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

(Joh 20:25) The other disciples told him: We have seen the Lord! But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

(Joh 20:26) Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them, and said: Peace to you.

(Joh 20:27) Then he said to Thomas: Reach here your finger and see my hands, and reach here your hand and put it into my side; and be not faithless but believing.

(Joh 20:28) Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.

(Joh 20:29) Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.

(Joh 20:30) Many other signs Jesus did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.

(Joh 20:31) But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name.

It is so simplistic as a child to point out when they read or hear about a man saying to another glorified man of God the words, my lord and my God and thinking instinctively that A=B or B=A.

However it takes an adult in the Spirit to know that the true meaning lies in understanding the context and why he spoke these words and knowing then that A and B are instinctively different.

 

[MonoBiblical]

You think you are more knowledgeable of the Scriptures then the Holy Spirit who Authored them???

NOPE, but the HS doesn't help you interpret the scripture. All that idolatry of the voice in your ears makes you think you are being helped it.

Edit: This is my view alone. Don't get offended.

 

[Pierac]

Go and sit in your corner.

J.

Oh my.... Your scriptural response is overwelming... Oh wait.... what response...

Do you have premission from your Pastor to post here? Given your beliefs... I'm guessing you as a WOMAN and are told to hold your tongue in your Church... Told by your own elders to know your place!!!

Your are out of line little Miss!!!

 

[Pierac]

Arianism rampant on this Forum.

J.

What do you know of Arianism... Little Girl

When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the churches were now Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to find a place for their new religious beliefs within the philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting Greek philosophical meanings into them. The Encyclopedia Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:

"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."

There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.

What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come.

Silly Child, how do you not know these things?

 

[Pierac]

Think of it as weak, like a Jehovah's Witness without education.

Look, I don't know much about your Jehovah's Witness church which you belong... But you should study scripture... Not the traditions of men!

 

[MonoBiblical]

The emperors were dictating the theology of the church.

If you mean Constantine, you are mistaken. Do you know the Arians were Origenists?

 

[MonoBiblical]

Look, I don't know much about your Jehovah's Witness church which you belong... But you should study scripture... Not the traditions of men!

I was wondering if you are one. They interfere with families.

 

[Wrangler]

That's the wrong question, the right questions is, who is that child who is called all these names? And how can a human be called all these names?

What a pathetic way to try to avoid the question! Wrong questions?! Try answering it.

 

[Wrangler]

Who is this child?

To answer this question, begin by identifying who is called these things, then go from there.

 

[David in NJ]

NOPE, but the HS doesn't help you interpret the scripture. All that idolatry of the voice in your ears makes you think you are being helped it.

This is Reserved in Heaven for those who love God.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;
for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak;
and He will tell you things to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
All things that the Father has are Mine.
Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

 

[Pierac]

You think you are more knowledgeable of the Scriptures then the Holy Spirit who Authored them???

If you mean Constantine, you are mistaken. Do you know the Arians were Origenists?

Really.... I'm giving you time... to correct your emotional post... You better do some actual study before posting such an infant response.... I have history and historical documents on my side.... Do you need to pull down your briches for a spanking too? Because I'm willing and ready to spank!!!

 

[APAK]

How did that answer my question, I repeat -

How can a human be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father ??

I am pretty sure you can do better.

PD...look beyond the words that trouble you and read for meaning and IN context.

'Mighty God is a poor translation from Hebrew into English. It means a 'mighty warrior' or victorious soldier. Now God Almighty is well above this humanlike description I would imagine.

And even the 'Everlasting Father' is another poor translation. It should read the father of the ages. And these ages were structured and designed by his Father, God.

Yahshua is the father of these ages in question, as Yahshua is the first and the last or the ONLY father of the new creation, the elect, the saved mankind of the Kingdom. Yahshua is the Father as he was the 1st reborn, resurrected from the dead. Without his act on the Cross and his Father's power of resurrection there would be no father for us in this light and circumstance.

 

[MonoBiblical]

This is Reserved in Heaven for those who love God.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;
for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak;
and He will tell you things to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
All things that the Father has are Mine.
Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Do I and you look like we live in 1st century Israel?

 

[MonoBiblical]

PD...look beyond the words that trouble you and read for meaning and IN context.

Do you know how participles are used in Hebrew?

 

[David in NJ]

Do I and you look like we live in 1st century Israel?

Your heart is thinking 1st Century Israel

 

[APAK]

Do you know how participles are used in Hebrew?

And just in Hebrew? Somewhat familiar by doing long hours of study ..cannot avoid and notice this style at times. It's in your face.

actions or verbs of 'to be' that act like adjectives.. ex....'to build' ..'to marry' or in the present tense, active or passive... a 'marrying' woman. And used also in the English language today.

and the point is?

signing off for now...need the sleep...

 

[Magdala]

I get that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three individual people. But I also know that the Spirit would never contradict the Son, and the Son would never contradict the Father. For this reason, if Joe, or Mary, or Hank were baptized in the name of the Son, it is the same thing as being baptized in the name of all three.

You say that being baptized in the name (authority) of the Son is the same as being baptized in the name (authority) of the Father and the Holy Spirit, because They don't contradict each Other in what They teach (They don't that's correct), but neither did the teachings of John the Baptist contradict Them, yet Jesus didn't include his name in Matt. 28:19. Therefore, Jesus didn't say "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" for the reason that They don't contradict each Other.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I am curious about your thoughts on Isa 9:6 -

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;

If I may......yes, the foretold Messiah would have a human birth, in a specific town at a specific time....and uniquely, to a virgin.

and the government shall be upon his shoulder,

What government is this? One ruled by a King appointed by God, who we know is Jesus Christ. That Government is God’s Kingdom.

and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor,

And wasn’t he a wonderful counselor?....who could deny that, because he said his teachings came directly from his Father.

Mighty God,

Yes, “Mighty God” (El Gib·bohrʹ) but not “Almighty God”. (El Shad·daiʹ).

Jehovah himself called human judges in Israel ”gods”....(John 10:31-36) so the designation “god” isn’t just for the Almighty. It means...

1. “god, god-like one, mighty one
   
   1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
   2. angels
   3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
   4. God, the one true God, Jehovah
2. mighty things in nature
3. strength, power” (Strongs)

Everlasting Father,

What does the word “father” mean in Hebrew?

1. “father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
4. ancestor”

So calling the Messiah a “father” was in the sense of “the head of a household, group, family or clan”...
His sacrifice granted them everlasting life.

Prince of Peace.

Yes, a Prince is the son of a King. And this Prince will serve his Father by restoring all humanity into reconciliation with their God....who is also his “God”. (Rev 3:12)

Quite some puzzle Oneness folks.

No puzzle at all really....all you need to do is original language word studies.....it is quite revealing. You don’t have to rely on biased translators to furnish the truth about God and his son....the Bible is an open book.

And it should match with everything else in Scripture.

And it does.....always. It is trinitarian bias that fails to match what the rest of the Bible says about God and his son.

Even with passages like - Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.

Pretending that there are not three “Gods” is a bit ridiculous when you have “God the Father”....”God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit”.....count them....1+1+1=3 NOT 1.

All three “Gods” have capital letters and are claimed to be equal in divinity and power...all are said to be worthy of worship.....so can one part of God on earth pray to his other self in heaven, and be provided with angelic assistance to strengthen him?
Can one part of God know things that the other parts don’t?
Can mere humans kill God?

These questions I find are difficult ones for trinitarians.

I’m afraid you need to brush up on some independent study, without relying on the one doctrine that undermines the Christian faith entirely....one for which circumstantial evidence cannot convict.