Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.

[godrulz]

The trinitarian doctrine says the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus are NOT the same. They say Jesus had his own spirit, that the Holy Spirit indwelt him, and that he only shared the same Spirit of God.

You are not teachable, glorydaz.

You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the view (especially 3 god talk).

We actually do say the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are titles for the person of the Holy Spirit. You equivocate with terms failing to distinguish the human spirit of Christ, the eternal/uncreated spirit nature of God, the person of the Holy Spirit who shares this spirit (in distinction from Father/Son who also share the spirit), etc.

Spirit is not spirit. Holy Spirit is spirit, but the terms are not interchangeable.

A rejection of the trinity and incarnation leads to endless problems for you.

Your view does not even get AND and WITH right. It ignores many clear verses to distort a few proof texts.

 

[Bright Raven]

:up:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I will try to summarize the whole matter one more time for GT's benefit...and for PPS. Stay tuned.

AMR

 

[Nang]

A rejection of the trinity and incarnation leads to endless problems for you.

Your view does not even get AND and WITH right. It ignores many clear verses to distort a few proof texts.

This is the scripture that comes to my mind, when reading all this Arian resistance on these boards:

II Thessalonians 2:7-12

 

[john w]

You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the view (especially 3 god talk).

We actually do say the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are titles for the person of the Holy Spirit. You equivocate with terms failing to distinguish the human spirit of Christ, the eternal/uncreated spirit nature of God, the person of the Holy Spirit who shares this spirit (in distinction from Father/Son who also share the spirit), etc.

Spirit is not spirit. Holy Spirit is spirit, but the terms are not interchangeable.

A rejection of the trinity and incarnation leads to endless problems for you.

Your view does not even get AND and WITH right. It ignores many clear verses to distort a few proof texts.

Penty is unbiblical and illogical. Your argument is vapid and fails to read “Peter, Paul, and Mary” closely. Your unbalanced is a works based caste system in the early church for some vs all, etc. The anti-intellectualism of your group also shows when you reject “The Modern English” evidence that contradicts your Penty proof texts. Context is also abused in your proof texting. Your arrogant personality is also grating.The key is proper exegesis in context, not importing Penty ideas into proof texts. The key is to translate/interpret/apply properly.

So there.

 

[lifeisgood]

Oh brother...the full moon is over.:juggle:

No, I think it just started. :rotfl:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Penty is unbiblical and illogical. Your argument is vapid and fails to read “Peter, Paul, and Mary” closely. Your unbalanced is a works based caste system in the early church for some vs all, etc. The anti-intellectualism of your group also shows when you reject “The Modern English” evidence that contradicts your Penty proof texts. Context is also abused in your proof texting. Your arrogant personality is also grating.The key is proper exegesis in context, not importing Penty ideas into proof texts. The key is to translate/interpret/apply properly.

So there.

Thanks for your agreement in support of the Trinity. i get that you may have issues with folks like godrulz and myself, but it is heartwarming to see you being able to set aside these differences when it comes to defending the sacred doctrine of the Trinity.

Much appreciated, brother!

AMR

 

[lifeisgood]

Excellent read for those interested: "The Forgotten Trinity" by James R. White.

 

[john w]

Thanks for your agreement in support of the Trinity. i get that you may have issues with folks like godrulz and myself, but it is heartwarming to see you being able to set aside these differences when it comes to defending the sacred doctrine of the Trinity.

Much appreciated, brother!

AMR

Uh, oh......my post was sarcastic. Wait....perhaps yours was also...

 

[john w]

Excellent read for those interested: "The Forgotten Trinity" by James R. White.

I revised it for you:

"Excellent read for those interested: 'The Forgotten Trinity' by James R. White*

*James White is a Calvinist-strike 1
James White is a bible corrector/agnostic/mystic-strike 2"


You are welcome.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Uh, oh......my post was sarcastic. Wait....perhaps yours was also...

No, my post was sincere in that I read between the lines to see your support despite your disdain for some personalities you, and even myself, may have issues with. Fortunately the Spirit can see through our grownings and speak for us even when we cannot speak for ourselves, brother.

AMR

 

[Brother Vinny]

I revised it for you:

"Excellent read for those interested: 'The Forgotten Trinity' by James R. White*

*James White is a Calvinist-strike 1
James White is a bible corrector/agnostic/mystic-strike 2"


You are welcome.

Which I take to read as:

James White disagrees with TOL's resident know-nothing on soteriology--that's a plus.
James White disagrees with TOL's resident know-nothing on KJV-onlyism--that's also a plus.

I may have to read this James White guy.

:thumb:

 

[john w]

No, my post was sincere in that I read between the lines to see your support despite your disdain for some personalities you, and even myself, may have issues with. Fortunately the Spirit can see through our grownings and speak for us even when we cannot speak for ourselves, brother.

AMR

Thanks-I thin, Ricky. And I do support the "Trinity" doctrine. But if I was against it, none of "god"rulz's autopilot "posts" would convince me otherwise. He would best serve the body of Christ by just shutting up, as he says nothing, in his autopilot spam cliches.

 

[john w]

Which I take to read as:

James White disagrees with TOL's resident know-nothing on soteriology--that's a plus.
James White disagrees with TOL's resident know-nothing on KJV-onlyism--that's also a plus.

I may have to read this James White guy.

:thumb:

And just who are you again, that he/she thinks he has deserved the right, has the :capital," to engage with one of the most respected, feared, revered, and humble members on TOL-the honorable John W? Refresh my memory, Nat-you are quite forgettable.

 

[john w]

And just who are you again, that he/she thinks he has deserved the right, has the "capital," to engage one of the most respected, feared, revered, and humble members on TOL-the honorable John W? Refresh my memory, Nat-you are quite forgettable.

 

[john w]

And just who are you again, that he/she thinks he has deserved the right, has the "capital," to engage one of the most respected, feared, revered, and humble members on TOL-the honorable John W? Refresh my memory, Nat-you are quite forgettable.

 

[john w]

delete

 

[john w]

----------------

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks-I thin, Ricky. And I do support the "Trinity" doctrine. But if I was against it, none of "god"rulz's autopilot "posts" would convince me otherwise. He would best serve the body of Christ by just shutting up, as he says nothing, in his autopilot spam cliches.

Well yes he can be frustrating in this regard and I have made quite an effort at recognizing the same. But I have concluded that he is not going to change and it is just not a good use of the time I have been given to point out the obvious.

AMR

 

[john w]

Well yes he can be frustrating in this regard and I have made quite an effort at recognizing the same. But I have concluded that he is not going to change and it is just not a good use of the time I have been given to point out the obvious.

AMR

Fair enough.