Exploring Anti-trinitarian Logic

[Taken]

Jesus said that God is His "Father", and God said that Jesus is His "Son".

Now...Something to consider..

God made Adam out of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib.

Conclusion?

He can certainly make a baby God man, inside a virgin's womb..and in fact, He did.

Not even a problem for the Creator who hung the sun and the stars and keeps the tide along the beach, most of the time.... pending a storm.

Agree.

You speak from a Spiritual perception.
Don’t know if you grasp the difference regarding those who speak from a Carnal perception, which is that which I disagree with.

God “creates”…and thereafter “makes” “something” Spiritually specific / unique regarding “His Creations.”

Regarding God “personally”, who is “Not Created,” can Also “make”;
Specific / Unique Spiritual “things” Apply to Himself.

Point being…”Making”…ONLY Applies-to “something” that which Already Exists.

God…IS Spirit without Beginning.
God can NOT “create” something That has no beginning.

God HAS Spirit(S)
God…was “Not Created.”
God…Can, Has, Does…”Make” Himself appear, according to His Will.

ManKIND…IS Dust, Which God Forms into a Body.
ManKIND…was Created, Formed out of its Created Habitat, Earth.
Formed ManKind, so Created, IS then MADE.

The “Purpose”…. OF “Making”…rests on “ONE unique INTENT”…—-> “Communication”.

“Communication…”
* “Between manKind and manKind”.
* “Between mankind and AnimalKIND”
And Ultimately;
* “Between manKind and The invisible Creator God”.

Gods Total essence…Body, Soul, Spirit, Word, Power, Truth, Life, Seed, etc.;
was Not Created…
* However By, Through, Of, Gods Power…
God Can, Has, Does, Will “Make”…His presence Known, IN a “fashion / manner”, via Gods Own Choosing.
* And By, Through, Of, Gods Wisdom…
God Can, Has, Does, Will “Call”, that which He “Makes”…”AS”, God “Chooses”.

God “PREPARED / MADE” a body, a name, titles, for “Himself”, sent “that Holy Thing” to Earth…to accomplish Gods Will….in a fashion / manner… pleasing unto God.

Luke 1:
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also “that” holy thing which shall be born of thee “shall be called the Son of God.”

Thirty years “later”…God declared “that holy thing to henceforth be called;
“The Son of God.”

Eph 1:
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Jesus…name God gave His Word.
Lord…..title God gave His Word.
Son……description God gave His Word.
Christ…God revealed IS His Power.
Christ…God revealed IS His Seed.
Christ…God revealed IS His Wisdom.

Where did Gods Word come From?
Gods Mouth.

Isa 55:
[11] So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Heb 10:
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Jesus “IS NOT” a Terrestrial Human man…Rather; Jesus Appeared to Terrestrial Human men, “IN the LIKENESS “AS” a terrestrial Human man.

Phil. 2:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Point?
Difference between ”IS” and “AS”
Point?
“IS”…man, comes from Dust of the Earth.
“AS”..man, comes from Gods Mouth.
Point?
“IS”…man, is corrupt.
“AS”..man, is holy.
Point?
“IS”…is human, earthly.
“AS”..is Spirit, celestial.

Purpose?
To Teach stiffed-neck, stubborn, ignorant, corrupt terrestrial, earthly, human men;
“How to” Become “MADE” Perfected, Wholly, Whole, Holy (body, soul, spirit)…
By, Through, Of…
Jesus…Gods Word
Christ…Gods Power, Wisdom, Seed
For?
To Glorify God.
Why?
Increase Gods Inheritance.
Meaning?
Every Human, that which becomes “MADE” wholly, whole, holy;
Becomes Gods “inheritance”!

Jesus IS, God,
God was Not Created.
God MADE Himself, AS a human man, to Serve Himself, and Reveal How human men can freely exercise their own FREEWILL to become MADE a holy Servant of God.

It’s a choice offering to created human earthly manKIND of beings.

Nothing new:
Josh 24:
[15] And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Jesus called a Man…no issue.
Jesus called a HUMAN man…is False.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Grailhunter]

The arrival of Christ (Messiah) and His Mission was fulfilled in the New Testament through the Incarnation of the Word. Prior to the Word becoming human, the Word preexisted and acted invisibly and incorporeally. Jesus is the Word in the flesh.

God is one and trine, which means there is one singular God Who is threefold in forms, effects, and powers. The Thought (the Father), the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, each working differently, and yet not working in contrary fashion, united as one because They are the same Essence: Love, equal in all respects as regards Divinity, Eternity, Immensity, and Omnipotence, but not confused in relation to one another, but, rather, quite distinct, and One is not the Other, and yet there are not three gods, but a single God, Who in and of Himself has given being to the individual Divine Persons in generating the Son and, by that very act, originating the procession of the Holy Spirit.

God had to be the Christ (Messiah), Redeemer, because He is the perfect sacrifice, but He couldn't do it in His invisible and incorporeal form. That's why the Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was sent by the Thought (the Father) to become human to be the Christ (Messiah), the Redeemer, and that was done by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary.

The Father and the Holy Spirit are invisible and incorporeal, as was the Word until that Person of the Holy Trinity became human: Jesus. Human sight or any other human sense never saw God before He became incarnate and cannot physically see the First and Third Persons (the Father and the Holy Spirit), but sees Them in the works which were or are carried out by Them. [N: 45-50]

Since the earthly creation has instead yielded Adam and Adam's race, Mary witnesses to the merciful superlove of God towards man, for through Mary, Mother of the Redeemer, God has worked the salvation of the human race. Jesus is the Christ because Mary conceived Him and gave Him to the World.

One may say that God could overcome the need to take flesh in a woman's womb. He could do all, it's true. But reflect on the law of order and goodness which lies in His annihilation in mortal clothing.

The sin committed by man had to be expiated by man and not by the nonincarnate divinity. How could the Divinity, incorporeal Spirit, redeem the sins of the flesh with the sacrifice of Itself? It was, then, necessary that God should pay for the sins of flesh and blood with the agony of an innocent Flesh and Blood, born of an innocent woman.

God's mind, God's feeling, and God's spirit would have suffered for our sins in mind, feeling, and spirit. But to be the Redemption of all forms of concupiscence inoculated into Adam and his descendants by the Tempter, the One Immolated for them all had to be endowed with a nature like ours, made worthy of being given as a ransom to God by the Divinity hidden in it, like a gem of infinite supernatural value hidden under common, natural clothing.

God is order, and God does not violate or do violence to order, except in very exceptional cases, judged useful by his Intelligence. Such was not the case with His Redemption.

God had not only to cancel sin from the moment it occurred until the moment of the sacrifice and annul in those to come the effects of sin by having them be born unaware of evil. No. With a total sacrifice God had to make reparation for Sin and the sins of all mankind give the men already dead absolution of sin, and give those living at that time and in the future the means to be helped to resist evil and to be forgiven for the evil which their weakness would lead them to do.

God's sacrifice thus had to be such as to present all the necessary requisites, and it could be such only in a God made man: a host worthy of God, a means understood by man. In addition, He was coming to bring the Law.

If His Humanity had not existed, how could we—His poor brothers and sisters, who labor to have faith in Him, who lived for thirty-three years on the earth, a Man among men—have believed? And how could He appear, already an adult, to hostile or ignorant peoples, making them convinced of His nature and His doctrine? He would then have appeared, in the eyes of the world, as a spirit who had taken on a human likeness, but not as a man Who was born and died, shedding real blood through the wounds of a real flesh as proof of being a man—and rose again and ascended to Heaven with His glorified body—as proof of being God returning to His eternal dwelling.

Isn't it sweeter for us to think that He is really our brother, with the destiny of creatures who are born, live, suffer, and die, than to conceive of Him as a Spirit superior to the exigencies of humanity?

It was necessary, then, for a woman to give birth to Him according to the flesh, after having conceived Him above the flesh, for from no marriage of creatures, no matter how holy they were, could the God-Man be conceived, but only from a wedding of Purity and Love, the Spirit and the Virgin, created without stain so as to be the matrix for the flesh of a God, the Virgin the thought of Whom was God's joy, since before time existed, the Virgin in Whom there is a compendium of the Father's creative perfection, the joy of Heaven, the salvation of the Earth, the most beautiful flower of Creation of all the flowers of the Universe, a living star before whom all the suns created by the Father seem dull. [N: 43]

Here are some yes–no questions:

John said, "the Word flesh became and dwelt among us" (1:14). Is John saying that the Word became flesh, and indicating that prior to becoming human, the Word preexisted as not a human?

John said, "The Word became flesh, and lived among us. [...] John testified about him." (Jn. 1:14-15). Is John referring to the one begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin, and named "Jesus" (the Son) (Matt. 1:20, Lk. 1:31;35)?



“If anyone comes to me, and doesn’t disregard his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can’t be my disciple." (Lk. 14:26)

Jesus means "hate in a holy manner." If within your heart you are saying: "Hatred, as He taught us, is never holy. So He is contradicting Himself." No. He's not contradicting Himself. He's saying that we must hate the heaviness of love, the sensual passionateness of love for your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and for your very life, on the contrary He orders us to love relatives and life with the light freedom of spirits. Love them in God and for God, never postponing God to them, endeavouring and taking care to lead them where the disciple has already arrived, that is to God, the Truth. We will thus love God and relatives in a holy manner, safeguarding each love, so that family ties will not be a burden but wings, not a fault, but justice. We must be prepared to hate even our lives in order to follow Him. He hates his life who without fear of losing it or making it sad from a human point of view, uses it to serve Him. But it is only an appearance of hatred. A feeling erroneously called "hatred" by man who cannot elevate himself, as he is entirely earthly, by little superior to brutes.

In actual fact such apparent hatred, which consists in denying sensual satisfaction to one's life in order to give a more and more intense life to the spirit, is love. It is love, of the highest degree and the most blessed. To deny oneself base satisfactions, to reject sensual affections, to risk unfair reproaches, criticism and punishment, being rejected, cursed and perhaps persecuted, all that is a sequence of grief. But it is necessary to embrace such grief and take it upon ourselves, like a cross, a scaffold on which all past faults are expiated to be justified by God, from Whom we can obtain every true, mighty, holy grace for those whom we love. He who does not carry his cross and does not follow Him, he who cannot do that cannot be His disciple. (PV3)

You are putting too much work into this…..I understand what you are saying.

I know the scriptures and the languages and the cultures and the history…..

I am a formally educated theologian, educated in 5 countries.

The “history” of the belief and doctrine of the Trinity is not hard to study….well documented.

So we do not agree…. no harm no foul.

 

[Taken]

Strange beliefs come from unique scriptures that are not well explained.

Explaining “Spiritual things” is mans Struggle.

Understanding Gods Word, comes from God.

The belief of Christ being active in the Old Testament is just not well enough explained for me to buy into it or call Yahweh a liar.

Ponder…

Jesus is the Name of Gods Word.
Jesus IS the Lamb of God.
Gods Word Speaks…(regardless if you know that is His His Name).

Christ is the Title of Gods Power.
Gods Spirit Power Acts…(regardless if you know that is Gods Power).

Gen 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said,

Gods Power and Word was Present and Acting In the beginning of Gods Creation.

When the Lamb of God was “slain” (killed), occured AS The Foundation of the Earth was being MADE.

How the Lamb of God was “slain”, was Lucifer ‘s Thoughts, THAT “he” could Rise Above God. Because THAT thought MADE Gods Truth A LIE of Lucifer…Lucifer was charged that Lies and punished for that Lie.
Lying against Gods Truth…IS Killing Gods Truth.

Humans, (4,000 years later) got to experience SEEING (by Gods way and means) what occurred as the foundation of the Earth was being MADE.

Rev 13:
[8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[Magdala]

I am a formally educated theologian, educated in 5 countries.

The “history” of the belief and doctrine of the Trinity is not hard to study….well documented.

Yet, somehow, you misunderstand the Trinity by thinking that They are three gods, and don't realize that the terms "the Trinity" and "the Triune God" are used interchangeably in Christianity. See below.

I believe in…
God the Father…
God the Son…
The Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…

I believe the word Trinity expresses three Gods in unity….Tri-unity. Triune would be three in one.
The three in one God formula does not show up in the scriptures or Christian history until the 4th century during the Roman Ecumenical Councils.

Firstly, the Trinity is not considered three gods in Christian belief, but rather one God existing in three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each working differently, and yet not working in contrary fashion, united as one because They are the same Essence: Love, equal in all respects as regards Divinity, Eternity, Immensity, and Omnipotence, but not confused in relation to one another, but, rather, quite distinct, and One is not the Other, and yet there are not three gods, but a single God, Who in and of Himself has given being to the individual Divine Persons in generating the Son and, by that very act, originating the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the words "Triune" and "Trinity" both share the definitions "three in one" and "the Trinity" (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). See below.

Triune 1 of 2 noun

often capitalized
: trinity sense 1

Triune 2 of 2 adjective

: three in one:
a : of or relating to the Trinity
the triune God

Trinity noun​

1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

Thirdly, since you believe in three gods, which means three separate gods (whether you realize that or not), that definitely doesn't show up in Scripture, nor Christian history.

We did not nail Yahweh to the cross.

Not all humans, only those were responsible for it committed deicide, and God didn't prevent it, nor run away from it. He accepted death as a human for humanity because He alone is the perfect sacrifice, for the mission of the Redeemer was not only to cancel sin from the moment it occurred until the moment of the sacrifice and annul in those to come the effects of sin by having them be born unaware of evil. No. With a total sacrifice He had to make reparation for Sin and the sins of all mankind, give the men already dead absolution of sin, and give those living at that time and in the future the means to be helped to resist evil and to be forgiven for the evil which their weakness would lead them to do.

God's sacrifice thus had to be such as to present all the necessary requisites, and it could be such only in a God made man: a host worthy of God, a means understood by man. In addition, He was coming to bring the Law.

If His Humanity had not existed, how could we—His poor brothers and sisters, who labor to have faith in Him, who lived for thirty-three years on the earth, a Man among men—have believed? And how could He appear, already an adult, to hostile or ignorant peoples, making them convinced of His nature and His doctrine? He would then have appeared, in the eyes of the world, as a spirit who had taken on a human likeness, but not as a man Who was born and died, shedding real blood through the wounds of a real flesh as proof of being a man—and rose again and ascended to Heaven with His glorified body—as proof of being God returning to His eternal dwelling.

Who else could do that but God? No one. That's why the Christ (Messiah) was the Word (Jn. 1:1), sent by the Father (Jn. 3:17;34;5:30;6:38;7:28-29;8:29;11:42;12:49;17:3;20:21;1 Jn. 4:9), begotten by the Holy Spirit and became human (indicating that prior to becoming human the Word preexisted invisibly and incorporeally), and born of the Virgin (Matt. 1:20, Lk. 1:31;35, Jn. 1:14).

Additionally, you didn't answer the following yes-no questions:

John said, "the Word flesh became and dwelt among us" (1:14). In that verse, is John saying that the Word became human, and indicating that prior to becoming human, the Word preexisted as not a human? Yes or no?

John said that the Word "became flesh and dwelt among us" and was "testified about" by John the Baptist (Jn. 1:14-15). In those verses, is John referring to the one begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin, and named "Jesus" (the Son) (Matt. 1:20, Lk. 1:31;35)? Yes or no?

 

[Grailhunter]

Thirdly, since you believe in three gods, which means three separate gods (whether you realize that or not), that definitely doesn't show up in Scripture, nor Christian history.

Christ Himself explained the oneness thing.
Beyond what is listed in the examples above, in the New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of this concept of one. Speaking to God the Father (He was not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one... John 17:19-24 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church being one. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”

Again....the gospels show two Gods working together to save Man and like I said the one God formula for the Trinity does not show up anywhere until the 4th century Roman Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Magdala]

Again....the gospels show two Gods working together to save Man and like I said the one God formula for the Trinity does not show up anywhere until the 4th century Roman Ecumenical Councils.

No, it's not "again" because you initially claimed that there are three gods, not two, and that the three in one God formula, not the one God formula, for the Trinity doesnt show up in Scripture or Christian history until the 4th century. See your words below.

I believe in…
God the Father…
God the Son…
The Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…

I believe the word Trinity expresses three Gods in unity….Tri-unity. Triune would be three in one.
The three in one God formula does not show up in the scriptures or Christian history until the 4th century during the Roman Ecumenical Councils.

Firstly, again, the Trinity is not considered three gods in Christian belief, but rather one God existing in three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, again, the words "Triune" and "Trinity" both share the definitions "three in one" and "the Trinity" (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). See below.

Triune 1 of 2 noun

often capitalized
: trinity sense 1

Triune 2 of 2 adjective

: three in one:
a : of or relating to the Trinity
the triune God

Trinity noun​

1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

You new belief that there's two gods instead of three gods is also wrong because in 1 Tim. 2:5, for example, we read that there is one God, not two.

Your new claim that the Trinity doctrine states there is one God is incomplete. The Trinity doctrine states that there's one God existing in three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each working differently, and yet not working in contrary fashion, united as one because They are the same Essence: Love, equal in all respects as regards Divinity, Eternity, Immensity, and Omnipotence, but not confused in relation to one another, but, rather, quite distinct, and One is not the Other, and yet there are not three gods, but a single God, Who in and of Himself has given being to the individual Divine Persons in generating the Son and, by that very act, originating the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, you have repeatedly refused to answer the following yes-no questions. What's the problem? If there's no problem, then answer them:

John said, "the Word flesh became and dwelt among us" (1:14). In that verse, is John saying that the Word became human, and indicating that prior to becoming human, the Word preexisted as not a human? Yes or no?

John said that the Word "became flesh and dwelt among us" and was "testified about" by John the Baptist (Jn. 1:14-15). In those verses, is John referring to the one begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin, and named "Jesus" (the Son) (Matt. 1:20, Lk. 1:31;35)? Yes or no?

 

[Grailhunter]

No, it's not "again" because you initially claimed that there are three gods, not two, and that the three in one God formula, not the one God formula, for the Trinity doesnt show up in Scripture or Christian history until the 4th century. See your words below.

I did no say that there were just two Gods. I was talking about that in the “four Gospels” it is clear to see that God the Father and God the Son work together to save Mankind.

God the Father had a Son…..that is two Gods.
There are over 50 “My Father” scriptures…. that is two Gods. God the Son referring to God the Father.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
God the Father did not say….He so loved the word that He gave Himself…..He gave His Son. Father + Son = Two Gods + the Holy Spirit = 3 Gods.
God the Father said who ever believed in His Son would have eternal life....two different Gods....God never said believing in Him would give eternal life.
God the Father begot His Son to walk among them to understand a different relationship with Them
Christ did not know when the end of time was going to happen but He said God the Father did….that is two minds.
I do my Father’s will…...not His own.
Christ prayed to His Father in the Garden….He did not pray to Himself.
Christ never said the Temple was His or to pray to Him in the Temple.
Christ did not have the authority to grant was John’s mother’s request for her sons to sit next Him.
The Apostles many referred to Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord.
Over a hundred scriptures prove the one God formula is wrong.

Christ’s sacrificial death (the first party) rent the veil in two that separated us from God the Father (the second party) so that we could have relationship with God the Father. God the Father AND God the Son….these are terms that God the Father chose so that we would understand how these relationships and positions worked in context.

As far as the Holy Spirit…..I am big on the Holy Spirit, I just wish there was more scriptural information about the Holy Spirit. We do not even know the name of the Holy Spirit.
Something you need to know about Theologians….They do not claim any denomination is "right" but they worship with most of them….and they do not care what the truth is…..whatever the truth is they want to know it.

 

[Magdala]

[...] like I said the one God formula for the Trinity does not show up anywhere until the 4th century Roman Ecumenical Councils.

No, not like you said, because what you initially said was that the three in one God formula, not the one God formula, for the Trinity doesn't show up until the 4th century:

The three in one God formula does not show up in the scriptures or Christian history until the 4th century during the Roman Ecumenical Councils.

So, why the change?

I believe in…
God the Father…
God the Son…
The Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…

I believe the word Trinity expresses three Gods in unity….Tri-unity. Triune would be three in one.
The three in one God formula does not show up in the scriptures or Christian history until the 4th century during the Roman Ecumenical Councils.

Firstly, the Trinity is not considered three separate gods in Christian belief, but rather one God Who eternally exists as three distinct Persons: the Thought (the Father), the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, united as one because They are the same Essence: Love.

Secondly, the words "Triune" and "Trinity" both share the definitions "three in one" and "the Trinity" (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). See below.

Triune 1 of 2 noun

often capitalized
: trinity sense 1

Triune 2 of 2 adjective

: three in one:
a : of or relating to the Trinity
the triune God

Trinity noun​

1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

Do you now understand the Trinity doctrine, and why the terms "Trinity" and/or "Triune" don't apply to your present belief in three separate gods?

Father + Son = Two Gods + the Holy Spirit = 3 Gods.

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but not in the way that you presently understand to be the case—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existing as three separate gods—which can't be the case because there's one single God:

"the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mk. 12:29)

"For there is one God" (1 Tim. 2:5)

"You believe that God is one. You do well." (Jas. 2:19)

and the one single God exists in three Persons: the Father (the Thought), the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit:

"there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him." (1 Cor. 8:6)

"I (Jesus the Word, the Son) and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30)

"But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the price of the land? While you kept it, didn’t it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn’t it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart? You haven’t lied to men, but to God.” (Act. 5:3-4) and so on...

and They are united as one because They are the same Essence (Love):

"God is Love" (1 Jn. 4:8;16)

To help better understand how the Trinity, or the Triune God, is a plurality within unity, consider water, for example, in the following way:

• Water exists in three states: solid, liquid, vapor, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance called "water." There are not three separate "substances" of water just because water exists in three states.

• God exists in three Persons: the Thought (the Father), the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: Love. There are not three separate gods just because God exists in three Persons.

The Thought (the Father), the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, each working differently, and yet not working in contrary fashion, united as one because They are the same Essence: Love, equal in all respects as regards Divinity, Eternity, Immensity, and Omnipotence, but not confused in relation to one another, but, rather, quite distinct, and One is not the Other, and yet there are not three gods, but a single God, Who in and of Himself has given being to the individual Divine Persons in generating the Son and, by that very act, originating the procession of the Holy Spirit.

If you come to understand and accept that the one single God is threefold in forms, effects, and powers, or three in one, then you'll no longer misinterpret the interactions and words exchanged between Them as being between three separate gods.

As far as the Holy Spirit…..I am big on the Holy Spirit, I just wish there was more scriptural information about the Holy Spirit.

I understand, but I have good news for you! I'll preface by saying that Scripture is an incomplete knowledge of everything and everyone, but that doesn't mean it is insufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation, because it's not. It's just that one of the things that we have to try and remember is that despite the information Scripture lacks, it helped us to believe in a living God, and the existence of a living God means that even after the last living apostle, He continued and continues to be interactive with His Creation in word and deed. For example, and this is the good news, a woman named Maria Valtorta received dictations and visions from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit over the course of almost 10 years, specifically from 1943 to 1950. I've learned a lot, including about the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity as a whole, etc., from Them. If you are ever open, check out the links in my signature for information about Maria Valtorta and the dictations and visions that she received from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, not like you said, because what you initially said was that the three in one God formula, not the one God formula, for the Trinity doesn't show up until the 4th century:

Just phrasing it different ways.

 

[Grailhunter]

insufficient

Did not say scripture was insufficient.

 

[Magdala]

Just phrasing it different ways.

Ah, thank you for clarifying. It crossed my mind that you might be, but I didn't ask first, and I should've, so my apologies for that.

Did not say scripture was insufficient.

I know, which is why I didn't say that you did. I was just making a statement. What you did say was that you wish there was more scriptural information about the Holy Spirit. Again, I understand that, but I have good news, and I'll preface by stating that Scripture is an incomplete knowledge of everything and everyone, but that it doesn't mean it is insufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation, because it's not. It's just that one of the things that we have to try and remember is that despite the information Scripture lacks, it helped us to believe in a living God, and the existence of a living God means that even after the last living apostle, He continued and continues to be interactive with His Creation in word and deed. For example, a woman named Maria Valtorta received dictations and visions from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit over the course of almost 10 years, specifically from 1943 to 1950. I've learned a lot, including about the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity as a whole, etc., from Them.

I'm sharing this with you because I want you to know that you don't have to wait until you're in Heaven to know more about the Holy Spirit. I want you to receive the gifts God gave us through Him using Maria Valtorta as His "pen", so that you, too, can experience the feeling of love, joy and clarity after reading His Words about many things, including the Holy Spirit. And, by His own admission, He says that there's still things we can't and won't understand until we're in Heaven, but from what He has revealed through Maria, I've learned so much more than I ever thought possible in this life, and so can others. He wants His Words to be shared to anyone who will listen. The God that we believe in is much more interactive and loving than many Christians realize. He's not confined to the pages of any book. He's the living God. He speaks to whomever, whenever, and about whatever He wills. And He has. He does. Does this mean that every person who claims to have received dictations and visions from God really did? No, but don't let that detour you, because God makes known Who His true spokesmen are, just as He's always done, and always will. There's a lot of proofs I can share in defense of Maria Valtorta's claims.

If you are ever open, check out the links in my signature for information about Maria Valtorta and the dictations and visions that she received from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Feel free to ask me questions anytime. :]

 

[Pierac]

[Note: due to character limit, I couldn't quote your post in full.]

In your reply, you didn't do what you were supposed to which was address an error you made and answer my question. So, again, in J. 1:14, John said, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". You said that the Koine Green word "σὰρξ" (flesh) in that verse means "became a reality", but it doesn't have that definition. See its actual definitions below.

"Forms of the word
Dictionary: σάρξ, σαρκός, ἡ
Greek transliteration: sarx
Simplified transliteration: sarx

Numbers
Strong's number: 4561
GK Number: 4922

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 147
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-3b(1)

Gloss: flesh, body

Definition: flesh, body, the soft tissue of a creature, often in contrast to bone, ligament, or sinew; by extension human, humankind, with a focus on the fallen human nature, which is frail and corrupt in contrast to immaterial (spiritual) things, thus the NIV (1984) translation sinful nature.

flesh, Lk. 24:39; Jn. 3:6; the human body, 2 Cor. 7:5; flesh, human nature, human frame, Jn. 1:13, 14; 1 Pet. 4:1; 1 Jn. 4:2; kindred, Rom. 11:14; lineage, Rom. 1:3; 9:3; flesh, humanity, human beings, Mt. 24:22; Lk. 3:6; Jn. 17:2; the circumstances of the body, material condition, 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:28; Phlm. 16; flesh, mere humanity, human fashion, 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 1:17; flesh as the seat of passion and frailty, Rom. 8:1, 3, 5; carnality, Gal. 5:24; materiality, material circumstance, as opposed to the spiritual, Phil. 3:3, 4; Col. 2:18; a material system or mode, Gal. 3:3; Heb. 9:10"

Therefore, according to its actual definition, John wrote that the Word became human, also indicating that prior to becoming human, the Word preexisted as not a human. And, was John not referring to the one begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin, and named "Jesus" when he wrote that the Word became human, lived among them, and was testified about by John the Baptist? (Jn. 1:14-15)

YOU SPEAK AS A CHILD!

What did Peter after being filled with the Holy Spirit say at the beginning of the Church of our Lord Jesus the Messiah....

Did Peter tell you God became flesh.... or did Peter tell you God worked through the flesh of a man He created!!!

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Is GOD a Man....

What did Jesus say....

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments

NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus can't even speak for himself... yet you claim to speak for Him!

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Paul wrote this many many years after Jesus rose from the dead.... Paul speaks of the risen Jesus... How???

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Paul is teaching the risen Jesus is in heaven as a man!!!

Lets review words... words matter!!!

AND, conj.

And is a conjunction, connective or conjoining word. It signifies that a word or part of a sentence is to be added to what precedes. Thus, give me an apple and an orange; that is, give me an apple, add or give in addition to that, an orange. John and Peter and James rode to New York, that is, John rode to New York; add or further, Peter rode to New York; add James rode to New York.

How do you not know these things?

 

[Pierac]

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)

So when did the Holy Spirit come into being? Jesus was begotten.... God's chosen one.... (look this verse up in your bible... It's there) So if Jesus was begotten... Was the Holy Spirit begotten too? Maybe at the same time? or did God wait 50 years?

I think any thinking human will see the problem here..... You say there are 3 in 1.... So when was the 3rd member created/begotten?

Because if the Holy Spirit was not created/begotten.... then the Holy Spirit is greater than Jesus... just like the Father!

Now you have 2 in 1...

How do you not know these things!

 

[Grailhunter]

YOU SPEAK AS A CHILD!

What did Peter after being filled with the Holy Spirit say at the beginning of the Church of our Lord Jesus the Messiah....

Did Peter tell you God became flesh.... or did Peter tell you God worked through the flesh of a man He created!!!

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Is GOD a Man....

What did Jesus say....

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments

NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus can't even speak for himself... yet you claim to speak for Him!

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Paul wrote this many many years after Jesus rose from the dead.... Paul speaks of the risen Jesus... How???

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Paul is teaching the risen Jesus is in heaven as a man!!!

Lets review words... words matter!!!

AND, conj.

And is a conjunction, connective or conjoining word. It signifies that a word or part of a sentence is to be added to what precedes. Thus, give me an apple and an orange; that is, give me an apple, add or give in addition to that, an orange. John and Peter and James rode to New York, that is, John rode to New York; add or further, Peter rode to New York; add James rode to New York.

How do you not know these things?

Jehovah’s Witness rhetoric?

 

[APAK]

Jehovah’s Witness rhetoric?

And you are blind to the truth by name calling with these childish words...

 

[Magdala]

YOU SPEAK AS A CHILD!

You said that the Koine Green word "σὰρξ" (flesh) in that verse means "became a reality", but it doesn't. See its actual definitions below.

"Forms of the word
Dictionary: σάρξ, σαρκός, ἡ
Greek transliteration: sarx
Simplified transliteration: sarx

Numbers
Strong's number: 4561
GK Number: 4922

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 147
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-3b(1)

Gloss: flesh, body

Definition: flesh, body, the soft tissue of a creature, often in contrast to bone, ligament, or sinew; by extension human, humankind, with a focus on the fallen human nature, which is frail and corrupt in contrast to immaterial (spiritual) things, thus the NIV (1984) translation sinful nature.

flesh, Lk. 24:39; Jn. 3:6; the human body, 2 Cor. 7:5; flesh, human nature, human frame, Jn. 1:13, 14; 1 Pet. 4:1; 1 Jn. 4:2; kindred, Rom. 11:14; lineage, Rom. 1:3; 9:3; flesh, humanity, human beings, Mt. 24:22; Lk. 3:6; Jn. 17:2; the circumstances of the body, material condition, 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:28; Phlm. 16; flesh, mere humanity, human fashion, 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 1:17; flesh as the seat of passion and frailty, Rom. 8:1, 3, 5; carnality, Gal. 5:24; materiality, material circumstance, as opposed to the spiritual, Phil. 3:3, 4; Col. 2:18; a material system or mode, Gal. 3:3; Heb. 9:10"

Therefore, according to its actual definition, John wrote that the Word became human, also indicating that prior to becoming human, the Word preexisted as not a human.

You also didn't answer the following question again: was John not referring to the one begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin, and named "Jesus" when he wrote that the Word became human, lived among them, and was testified about by John the Baptist? (Jn. 1:14-15)

I think your repeated refusal to address your error and answer my simple question shows I shouldn't expect either.

 

[Magdala]

Ok, last time LM, what part of 'himself' do you not understand as I answered the question in the first place...?
.....
(Gen 1:26) God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
(Gen 1:27) God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him; male and female He created them.
(Gen 1:28) God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
(Gen 1:29) God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food.
(Gen 1:30) To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so.
(Gen 1:31) God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

In verse 26, God-Elohim of the plural, spoke to himself as he expressed his thoughts and his word as the plurality of majesty (and you still do not understand this expression apparently) with plural pronouns in verse 26...'us' and 'them'
In verses 1-26 and then in verses 27-31 he reverted back to his common usage of God-Elohim as a singular title, with singular objects of grammar like: his, I,

If you didn't catch my drift by now yo have no understanding of what you are asking, and thus surely have not answer for sure.

Like you oops, just stepped in with both feet in the mud...

In Gen. 1:26, the author of Genesis said the part "God (Elohim) said [...]", and they would've used it in the singular sense as they were referring to the one singular God. God is the one Who spoke in the first-person plural by saying, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness [...]". If God isn't one and trine, then what is your explanation for why the one singular God spoke in the first-person plural, rather than in first-person singular?

Additionally, I asked if you have an explanation to the question posed to you in post #40, but you didn't answer. Then, I asked you if that was your way of indicating that you don't have one, and you didn't answer that either. Therefore, you've given the impression that you don't. You should probably find out the explanation, because that's something you should know. Don't you agree?

And you are blind to the truth by name calling with these childish words...

Grailhunter wasn't name-calling, but rather asking Pierac if what he was saying was Jehovah’s Witness rhetoric. And, in case you didn't know, the term "Jehovah's Witness" is for a member of the Christian religious group called "Jehovah's Witnesses".

 

[Magdala]

”theios”….it is a very similar word...”divine, pertaining to God”.…thus Jesus is of divine origin, making him divine but not deity.

I'm aware of that definition of the Koine Greek word "theios" (divine), because I presented that word and its definitions to you in a previous post. Here are its definitions again:

"Forms of the word
Dictionary: θεῖος, α, ον
Greek transliteration: theios
Simplified transliteration: theios

Numbers
Strong's number: 2304
GK Number: 2521

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 3
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: a-1a(1)
Gloss: divine

Definition: divine, pertaining to God, 2 Pet. 1:3, 4; τὸ θειον, the divine nature, divinity, Acts 17:29*"

The word "theios" (divine) is used only three times in the New Testament (Act. 17:19, 2 Pet. 1:3, 2 Pet. 1:4), and in each of those times it's used to refer to God.

Calling Jesus divine never made him God’s equal.

The pre-human Jesus was God’s first creation (Rev 3:14) and as a human he was also a direct creation of God, his life force transferred from heaven to the womb of a Jewish virgin so that he could become the “second Adam”, and redeem the human race……he had to be human to pay back what Adam took away from his children. He did so out of love. (Prov 8:30-31)

If you know God’s law, then you will understand that it stated….”an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”…..in order to pay back the perfect sinless life that Adam lost for all his future offspring, Jesus had to die as Adam’s equivalent.…. a sinless life for a sinless life.…balancing the scales of God’s perfect justice. No other human on earth was sinless, so God himself provided the redeemer…..at great cost to himself.

So, you're saying that God had to create a lesser divine and sinless being than Himself, the most Divine, Holy, Pure, and Powerful Uncreated Being, in order to accomplish what He could not.

Well, the mission of the Redeemer was not only to cancel sin from the moment it occurred until the moment of the sacrifice and annul in those to come the effects of sin by having them be born unaware of evil. No. With a total sacrifice He had to make reparation for Sin and the sins of all mankind, give the men already dead absolution of sin, and give those living at that time and in the future the means to be helped to resist evil and to be forgiven for the evil which their weakness would lead them to do.

Their sacrifice thus had to be such as to present all the necessary requisites, and it could be such only in a God made man: a host worthy of God, a means understood by man. In addition, They were coming to bring the Law.

Who else could do that but God Himself? Why do you believe that God Himself couldn't do that?

Why was Jesus called ”the Word” (ho logos)?

Jesus is called the Word because He is the Word as a human, for John said that the Word "became flesh and lived among us" (Jn. 1:14), and was "testified about" by John the Baptist. (Jn. 1:15)

 

[APAK]

In Gen. 1:26, the author of Genesis said the part "God (Elohim) said [...]", and they would've used it in the singular sense as they were referring to the one singular God. God is the one Who spoke in the first-person plural by saying, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness [...]". If God isn't one and trine, then what is your explanation for why the one singular God spoke in the first-person plural, rather than in first-person singular?

Additionally, I asked if you have an explanation to the question posed to you in post #40, but you didn't answer. Then, I asked you if that was your way of indicating that you don't have one, and you didn't answer that either. Therefore, you've given the impression that you don't. You should probably find out the explanation, because that's something you should know. Don't you agree?



Grailhunter wasn't name-calling, but rather asking Pierac if what he was saying was Jehovah’s Witness rhetoric. And, in case you didn't know, the term "Jehovah's Witness" is for a member of the Christian religious group called "Jehovah's Witnesses".

I agree with @Pierac , you do speak/write as a child. And you seem to have much difficulty in comprehending the obvious....like when someone attempts to insult another person.

 

[Magdala]

I agree with @Pierac , you do speak/write as a child.

Then it should've been easy for him to address his error I pointed out and the question I asked him, and it should've been easy for you to respond to my latest reply to you in our discussion, but neither of you did.

And you seem to have much difficulty in comprehending the obvious....like when someone attempts to insult another person.

You said that Grailhunter was name-calling, but rather he asked Pierac if what he was saying was Jehovah’s Witness rhetoric. And, in case you didn't know, the term "Jehovah's Witness" is for a member of the Christian religious group called "Jehovah's Witnesses".