Satan was right? Egads!

[PinSeeker]

I'm not JW.

Well, that's good... :) But your understandings are very JW-esque. :) But yes, I'm well aware of the fact that JWs are not the only ones who deny that Jesus was God in the flesh.

Yes, when Jesus and God are kept in their proper positions, it is a different story, one which you do not know.

Well, the issue, Rich, is what Their "proper positions" really are. If those positions are misconstrued, then it becomes ~ is made into ~ a very different story than what the Bible tells, and that's precisely the problem.

I know your story but you don't know mine...

I don't think you do know my story, and I don't claim to know yours, Rich. But here again, we may be talking about two different things regarding our "stories."

...so I don't see how you are in any position to comment on how the Bible reads with the understanding of Jesus actually being the son of God.

Right back at you, Rich. Right back at you.

You've never read it that way, so how could you know?

The wrong ~ Holy Spirit-less way? Actually, in the interest of being really correct, I should turn that around: The Holy Spirit-less and thus wrong way? So yes, I don't know (meaning far more than just cognitive understanding) that "way." :) And I thank God for that.

If you had the courage to investigate, you'd quickly see your story was written by Plato, not by YHWH.

With all due respect, Rich, this statement is ridiculous. None of Scripture is Plato-breathed. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

Rich R said:

If you had the courage to investigate, you'd quickly see your story was written by Plato, not by YHWH.​

With all due respect, Rich, this statement is ridiculous. None of Scripture is Plato-breathed. :)

Grace and peace to you.

I wasn't suggesting that scripture is Plato-breathed. I was saying the the trinity is Plato-breathed.

Do you know anything about Plato's "Theory of Forms?"

 

[PinSeeker]

I wasn't suggesting that scripture is Plato-breathed.

I know. But that is the suggestion, albeit unintended... :)

I was saying the trinity is Plato-breathed.

I get that, and to that I would say, not originally. :)

Do you know anything about Plato's "Theory of Forms?"

I'm aware of it, yes. Plato was an interesting character. :)

Here's what I'll say to your assertion here, Rich:

Unbelievers (and I'm not suggesting anything about you) assert all the time, in discussions about the existence of God, the veracity of the Bible, and all kinds of other things Christian, that there are many, many myths, legends, or stories from all kinds of people groups going back in history that are similar in some degree to the claims of the Bible (i.e. a great flood, a hero laying down his life in some way, etc.). Therefore, they say, God, the Bible, all things Christian are just as mythological and thus untrue as all those other myths/legends/stories. But I would say ~ and I think you probably would, too, actually ~ that the very fact that all those people groups going back in history have very similar stories is indicative that there is truth to some degree in all of them. They are taken from the real thing and therefore contain elements of, or point to, the true thing that really happened. And in this way, your belief about Plato is true. He certainly was not the first, and also is certainly not the last. As Paul says:

"...what can be known about God is plain to (all), because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:19-23)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

Unbelievers (and I'm not suggesting anything about you) assert all the time, in discussions about the existence of God, the veracity of the Bible, and all kinds of other things Christian, that there are many, many myths, legends, or stories from all kinds of people groups going back in history that are similar in some degree to the claims of the Bible (i.e. a great flood, a hero laying down his life in some way, etc.). Therefore, they say, God, the Bible, all things Christian are just as mythological and thus untrue as all those other myths/legends/stories. But I would say ~ and I think you probably would, too, actually ~ that the very fact that all those people groups going back in history have very similar stories is indicative that there is truth to some degree in all of them. They are taken from the real thing and therefore contain elements of, or point to, the true thing that really happened. And in this way, your belief about Plato is true. He certainly was not the first, and also is certainly not the last.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not suggesting anything other than the myth of three gods being one god.

"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."
​

The logos has a logical meaning (logos is where we get the word logic), but this bit from the Athenasian Creed is totally illogical and therefore comes under the banner of myth. I didn't bring this myth into the scriptures. I soundly reject it in favor of the true logos of John 1, not the mythical idea illustrated below:



This diagram as a trinity "proof" is as illogical as illogical gets.


Breaks all rules of logic and normal thinking.


As does this one. But we are told that if we don't accept this we are doomed to eternal suffering. Maybe you don't say that, but most Trinitarians do. I'm sorry, but I refuse to check my brain in at the front door when I go to worship.

The scriptures never teaches that God is a Trinity. Even Trinitarian scholars will attest to this. For example, Baptist theologian, William N. Clarke, writes:

"The word Trinity is never used, and there is no indication that the idea of Trinity had taken form. It has long been a common practice to read the New Testament as if the ideas of a later age upon this subject were in it, but they are not. In the days of the apostles the doctrine of the Trinity was yet to be created…after the lapse of three or four centuries, there was wrought a doctrine of the Trinity...This historic doctrine differed widely from the simplicity of the early faith"​

 

[Jack]

You can't just go changing words in the scriptures.

I didn't.

 

[Rich R]

I didn't.

I probably mixed you up with someone else. Sorry about that!

 

[theefaith]

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not suggesting anything other than the myth of three gods being one god.

"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."
​

The logos has a logical meaning (logos is where we get the word logic), but this bit from the Athenasian Creed is totally illogical and therefore comes under the banner of myth. I didn't bring this myth into the scriptures. I soundly reject it in favor of the true logos of John 1, not the mythical idea illustrated below:

View attachment 23477

This diagram as a trinity "proof" is as illogical as illogical gets.

View attachment 23478
Breaks all rules of logic and normal thinking.

View attachment 23479
As does this one. But we are told that if we don't accept this we are doomed to eternal suffering. Maybe you don't say that, but most Trinitarians do. I'm sorry, but I refuse to check my brain in at the front door when I go to worship.

The scriptures never teaches that God is a Trinity. Even Trinitarian scholars will attest to this. For example, Baptist theologian, William N. Clarke, writes:

"The word Trinity is never used, and there is no indication that the idea of Trinity had taken form. It has long been a common practice to read the New Testament as if the ideas of a later age upon this subject were in it, but they are not. In the days of the apostles the doctrine of the Trinity was yet to be created…after the lapse of three or four centuries, there was wrought a doctrine of the Trinity...This historic doctrine differed widely from the simplicity of the early faith"​

So three human persons cannot be unique distinct persons and yet share the same human nature???

 

[theefaith]

Yes! Jesus is called the son of God some 35 times. Never called God the Son, which does nothing but cause problem after problem in understanding God's will for us. In no other arena of life would one think a son can be his own father. Just shows the power of tradition to think such a thing could be. Tradition makes the Word of God of no effect (Mark 7:13).

Thanks.

tradition is very biblical!

Example 1 cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,

tradition is teaching

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

[Rich R]

So three human persons cannot be unique distinct persons and yet share the same human nature???

What do you mean by human nature? I take it to mean what all humans have. So no problem with any three people sharing the same human nature. Still have three unique distinct individuals though. Nothing about three of anything in one of anything because we all share human nature.

 

[theefaith]

What do you mean by human nature? I take it to mean what all humans have. So no problem with any three people sharing the same human nature. Still have three unique distinct individuals though. Nothing about three of anything in one of anything because we all share human nature.

yes three distinct unique persons one human nature

so it is possible to have three distinct unique persons with one divine nature! Thank you!