Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

This isn’t “my view”, whether you accept it or not (and of course you won’t, because you’ve imbibed false doctrine in total ignorance from your indoctrination); this is the authentic Christian faith according to the divinely inspired text. It has NEVER been validly in question in the two millennia of the Christian faith.

You MUST learn the Trinity doctrine for what it is before you can begin any attempt to refute any aspect of it. All your assertions are barely even strawmen. Total caricatures.

You aren’t even genuine enough to have the charity of learning the Trinity doctrine for what it both IS and ISN’T. You have sacrificed every shred of credibility by mirepresenting Theology Proper. You obviously don’t even know how badly you have contorted and perveted something you know nothing of. It’s truly pitiful. You should at least care about that.

I have learnt sufficiently of the “Trinity” to avoid going any further. I find your responses interesting, but not much Scriptural substance. You seem to withdraw into your intellectual studies on obscure historical church documents and reasoning. For example from your earlier Post:

So all you’ve done is indicate that you don’t know the difference between an ousia and an hypostasis, and that you don’t have any idea how the Patristics utilized these terms according to Apostolic influence to determine the minutiae of the Trinity doctrine.

You are correct, and I do not want to go down that path.

Seriously? Sigh.

And I am fairly certain that you would like to avoid Psalm 110:1 and the quotations and application of this in the NT by Christ and the Apostles because it is a clear testimony against the teaching of the Trinity. And you question why I do not want to travel down the path of your obscure Church fathers and their philosophic and unscriptural teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Vail Lifted]

Still not answering my question

Did Jesus exist before He was conceived in Mary's womb?

No. And I say that because the Scriptures teach that Jesus became the son of God by being born of a woman in the weakness of the flesh. He then is declared to be the son of God in power by being born from the dead to die no more.

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. Luke 1:32

28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Acts 13:28-34

Jesus was first born by being generated of the seed of David his father according to the flesh. That which is born of flesh is flesh. Jesus is then declared to be son of God in power(immortal) by being born of the spirit. As it says also in Hebrews, by the spirit of holiness (holy spirit) by his resurrection (birth) from the dead. Jesus is therefore the firstborn from the dead.

 

[Right Divider]

No. And I say that because the Scriptures teach that Jesus became the son of God by being born of a woman in the weakness of the flesh. He then is declared to be the son of God in power by being born from the dead to die no more.

So you think that Jesus "became the Son of God" at the same time that God became "the Father"?

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. Luke 1:32

28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Acts 13:28-34

Jer 23:5-6 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

​

Jesus is the LORD.

Jesus was first born by being generated of the seed of David his father according to the flesh. That which is born of flesh is flesh. Jesus is then declared to be son of God in power(immortal) by being born of the spirit. As it says also in Hebrews, by the spirit of holiness (holy spirit) by his resurrection (birth) from the dead. Jesus is therefore the firstborn from the dead.

"being generated from the see of David"? What in the world do you mean by that?

Jesus is the LORD, per scripture.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Jer 23:5-6 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, the LORD our righteousness.

You need a reality check or, at the minimum, an update about what happened to Jesus according to "scripture". While a "king in waiting" Jesus never reigned as king of the Jews nor did he "prosper and execute judgement and justice" on anyone. Judah fell even deeper in difficulty with Rome and, as far as anyone knows, now exists in name only.

The bottom line is this is one of the biblical "prophecies" yet to be fulfilled, Nostrodamus has a better track record.

Jesus is the LORD, per scripture.

:nono:

 

[Vail Lifted]

So you think that Jesus "became the Son of God" at the same time that God became "the Father"?

yes.

Jer 23:5-6 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

​

Jesus is the LORD.

That passage in Jeremiah refers to the second coming of Christ when he is seated on the throne of the LORD in his kingdom. At that time Jesus is called "the Lord our righteousness" because he is God's instrument by which God's righteousness is imputed to the believer because they have none of their own. Or as Paul calls our own righteousness: "filthy rags". We put on God's righteousness (pure white clothes) when we put on Christ.

"being generated from the see of David"? What in the world do you mean by that?

It simply means that Jesus is son of David.

 

[Right Divider]

You need a reality check or, at the minimum, an update about what happened to Jesus according to "scripture". While a "king in waiting" Jesus never reigned as king of the Jews nor did he "prosper and execute judgement and justice" on anyone. Judah fell even deeper in difficulty with Rome and, as far as anyone knows, now exists in name only.

The scripture that I quoted has nothing to do with what you just said.

The bottom line is this is one of the biblical "prophecies" yet to be fulfilled, Nostrodamus has a better track record.

I never said that THAT prophecy was already fulfilled.

:nono:

:french:

 

[Right Divider]

yes.

Proverbs talked about God and His son long ago; long before Jesus was born.

Pro 30:4 KJV Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

​

That passage in Jeremiah refers to the second coming of Christ when he is seated on the throne of the LORD in his kingdom. At that time Jesus is called "the Lord our righteousness" because he is God's instrument by which God's righteousness is imputed to the believer because they have none of their own. Or as Paul calls our own righteousness: "filthy rags". We put on God's righteousness (pure white clothes) when we put on Christ.

You falsely "interpret" the LORD our righteousness. That is very typical of those that reject the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It simply means that Jesus is son of David.

No, it does not.

Jesus proved that wrong here:

Mat 22:41-46 KJV While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, (42) Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. (43) He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, (44) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? (45) If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? (46) And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.​

 

[Silent Hunter]

You need a reality check or, at the minimum, an update about what happened to Jesus according to "scripture". While a "king in waiting" Jesus never reigned as king of the Jews nor did he "prosper and execute judgement and justice" on anyone. Judah fell even deeper in difficulty with Rome and, as far as anyone knows, now exists in name only.

The scripture that I quoted has nothing to do with what you just said.

Denying it doesn't make it not so. You used Jeremiah 23:5-6 to imply Jesus is "LORD". As you should know (but probably don't, as is the case with most Christians who equivocate the uses of "LORD", "Lord" and "lord" found throughout the KJV) "LORD" [all caps) is KJV shorthand for the Hebrew deity's name "YHWH".

The bottom line is this is one of the biblical "prophecies" yet to be fulfilled, Nostrodamus has a better track record.

I never said that THAT prophecy was already fulfilled.

If Jeremiah 23:5-6 isn't a fulfilled prophecy then the connection you are suddenly eager to distance yourself from is a phantom.

Here's what you said:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. (6) In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, the LORD our righteousness.

Jesus is the LORD.

If your intent wasn't to connect Jeremiah 23:5-6 to Jesus what then was your intent?

 

[Right Divider]

Denying it doesn't make it not so. You used Jeremiah 23:5-6 to imply Jesus is "LORD".

I'm not implying anything. That is exactly what is SAYS.

As you should know (but probably don't, as is the case with most Christians who equivocate the uses of "LORD", "Lord" and "lord" found throughout the KJV) "LORD" [all caps) is KJV shorthand for the Hebrew deity's name "YHWH".

I completely understand the confusion of you and others.

The term in Jeremiah that refers to Jesus, is LORD... the ALL CAPS variety.

If Jeremiah 23:5-6 isn't a fulfilled prophecy then the connection you are suddenly eager to distance yourself from is a phantom.

You are incredibly silly, That passage will be fulfilled when Jesus returns to establish His kingdom.

Here's what you said:
If your intent wasn't to connect Jeremiah 23:5-6 to Jesus what then was your intent?

It is about Jesus, so what's your point?

The BRANCH is Jesus... the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is Jesus... etc. etc. etc.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Denying it doesn't make it not so. You used Jeremiah 23:5-6 to imply Jesus is "LORD".

I'm not implying anything. That is exactly what is SAYS.

Says you, not Jeremiah 23:5-6. What the verse says and what you WISH it said are two very different things. Jeremiah might be about Jesus or it just as likely might be about someone else. You have "Wish" in one hand and "Hope" in the other.

As you should know (but probably don't, as is the case with most Christians who equivocate the uses of "LORD", "Lord" and "lord" found throughout the KJV) "LORD" (all caps) is KJV shorthand for the Hebrew deity's name "YHWH".

I completely understand the confusion of you and others.

I'm quite certain I know the difference between "LORD" when applied to the Hebrew deity and "Lord" when applied to Jesus. The bible NEVER calls Jesus "LORD"... ever.

The term in Jeremiah that refers to Jesus, is LORD... the ALL CAPS variety.

Wishful thinking and $2 will often (but not always) get you a 20oz soft drink at most vending machines.

If Jeremiah 23:5-6 isn't a fulfilled prophecy then the connection you are suddenly eager to distance yourself from is a phantom.

You are incredibly silly, That passage will be fulfilled when Jesus returns to establish His kingdom.

Prophecies are easier fulfilled in hindsight, especially when the first swing misses.

If your intent wasn't to connect Jeremiah 23:5-6 to Jesus what then was your intent?

It is about Jesus, so what's your point?

The BRANCH is Jesus... the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is Jesus... etc. etc. etc.

Christians spend a lot of time being certain about something they can't possibly know.

 

[Right Divider]

Says you, not Jeremiah 23:5-6. What the verse says and what you WISH it said are two very different things. Jeremiah might be about Jesus or it just as likely might be about someone else. You have "Wish" in one hand and "Hope" in the other.

And just who do you think that this righteous Branch the King will be?

I'm quite certain I know the difference between "LORD" when applied to the Hebrew deity and "Lord" when applied to Jesus. The bible NEVER calls Jesus "LORD"... ever.

I'm quite certain that you don't.

The Hebrew LORD is translated Lord in the NT. Do the following passages NOT refer to the LORD?

Mat 4:7 KJV Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
​

Mat 4:10 KJV Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.​

Here is one QUOTING the Hebrews scripture:

Mar 1:1-3 KJV The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (2) As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. (3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.​

Where is what was QUOTED:

Isa 40:3 KJV The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.​

​

Wishful thinking and $2 will often (but not always) get you a 20oz soft drink at most vending machines.

:nightall:

Prophecies are easier fulfilled in hindsight, especially when the first swing misses.

Christians spend a lot of time being certain about something they can't possibly know.

:juggle:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma, I have learnt sufficiently of the “Trinity” to avoid going any further. I find your responses interesting, but not much Scriptural substance. You seem to withdraw into your intellectual studies on obscure historical church documents and reasoning. For example from your earlier Post: You are correct, and I do not want to go down that path.
And I am fairly certain that you would like to avoid Psalm 110:1 and the quotations and application of this in the NT by Christ and the Apostles because it is a clear testimony against the teaching of the Trinity. And you question why I do not want to travel down the path of your obscure Church fathers and their philosophic and unscriptural teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor

You most definitely have NOT “learned sufficiently” of the Trinity doctrine, for you can only regurgitate a pitiful caricature of the Trinity that has nothing at all to do with the Trinity doctrine. It’s a total misunderstanding and mispresentation, and from a non-linguistic hyper-conceptual and deductive perspective that has nothing to do with truth.

Unless and until you can accruately represent the authentic Trinity doctrine, you have no business attempting to address the topic of Theology Proper and the Trinity. Full stop.

You are the prototype for building lame faux-strawmen. You have no idea how poorly you disfigure any recognizable facsimile of the Trinity doctrine.

You really should take a seat, but you can’t and won’t. That’s how neophytes are.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Says you, not Jeremiah 23:5-6. What the verse says and what you WISH it said are two very different things. Jeremiah might be about Jesus or it just as likely might be about someone else. You have "Wish" in one hand and "Hope" in the other.

And just who do you think that this righteous Brach the King will be?

Jeremiah might as well be predicting Ocasio-Cortez as the next Democratic president of the United States.

I'm quite certain I know the difference between "LORD" when applied to the Hebrew deity and "Lord" when applied to Jesus. The bible NEVER calls Jesus "LORD"... ever.

I'm quite certain that you don't.

LOL!!!

I'll wait while you find the HEBREW word "YHWH" translated "LORD" in the "New Testament".

The Hebrew LORD is translated Lord in the NT.

Impossible! The Hebrew word "YHWH" does not even appear in the "New Testament".

Do the following passages NOT refer to the LORD?

Mat 4:7 KJV Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.​

Mat 4:10 KJV Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.​

Well, these passages do have Jesus saying something about "God" and he considers "him" to be "Lord", even "Lord God", but Jesus could be referring to "Zeus" since the "New Testament" is written in GREEK.

Here is one QUOTING the Hebrews scripture:

Mar 1:1-3 KJV The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (2) As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. (3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.​

Where is what was QUOTED:

Isa 40:3 KJV The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.​

This is a liberal interpretation of the "scripture". Jesus was also said to be a "messenger" being the one sent to deliver the "word of god" (see John 1 and the rest of John where Jesus claims NOT to be "god" and is only delivering the message). Even Matthew 3 does not support your hypothesis since John's message is, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near" and the prophecy of Isaiah is simply one chosen in hindsight.

 

[Right Divider]

Jeremiah might as well be predicting Ocasio-Cortez as the next Democratic president of the United States.

:juggle:

LOL!!!

K:

I'll wait while you find the HEBREW word "YHWH" translated "LORD" in the "New Testament".

Impossible! The Hebrew word "YHWH" does not even appear in the "New Testament".

I never said that ANY of the NT was written in Hebrew. But I did show you where an OT prophet written in Hebrew used LORD and the SAME passage was QUOTED in the NT using the equivalent Greek word.

Well, these passages do have Jesus saying something about "God" and he considers "him" to be "Lord", even "Lord God", but Jesus could be referring to "Zeus" since the "New Testament" is written in GREEK.

You really are dumb.

This is a liberal interpretation of the "scripture". Jesus was also said to be a "messenger" being the one sent to deliver the "word of god" (see John 1 and the rest of John where Jesus claims NOT to be "god" and is only delivering the message). Even Matthew 3 does not support your hypothesis since John's message is, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near" and the prophecy of Isaiah is simply one chosen in hindsight.

Your retarded comments have earned you a place on my coveted ignore list.

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, From my 1968 print copy of Webster’s: being, n. 1. Existence, state of existing. 2. A human creature, living person; Deity: the Supreme Being.
Thus humans exist and are beings, and God the Father exists and is a Being and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God exists and is a Being, and he is a separate Being from God His Father. Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God, two Beings in heaven Psalm 110:1.

Kind regards
Trevor

You did not answer the question I asked you: What would you say makes something a being?

Of every thing you consider to be a being, what about that thing would you say makes it a being? If there is any thing which you would say is not a being, what about that thing would you say makes it not a being?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I'll wait while you find the HEBREW word "YHWH" translated "LORD" in the "New Testament".

Impossible! The Hebrew word "YHWH" does not even appear in the "New Testament".

I never said that ANY of the NT was written in Hebrew.

Absolutely right. Not one word of the NT was written in Hebrew (though some direct Aramaic words are) which makes it the more curious you would say, "The Hebrew LORD is translated Lord in the NT", if the Hebrew word "YHWH" is nowhere to be found in the NT.

But I did show you where an OT prophet written in Hebrew used LORD and the SAME passage was QUOTED in the NT using the equivalent Greek word.

This is simply not true and demonstratively so. The OT "prophet", writing in Hebrew, used the word "YHWH". What exactly is the Greek equivalent of "YHWH".

Well, these passages do have Jesus saying something about "God" and he considers "him" to be "Lord", even "Lord God", but Jesus could be referring to "Zeus" since the "New Testament" is written in GREEK,

You really are dumb.

Ah, the eventual ad hominem for which Christians on TOL are famous. Rather than address the argument you concede it. Thank you.

This is a liberal interpretation of the "scripture". Jesus was also said to be a "messenger" being the one sent to deliver the "word of god" (see John 1 and the rest of John where Jesus claims NOT to be "god" and is only delivering the message). Even Matthew 3 does not support your hypothesis since John's message is, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near" and the prophecy of Isaiah is simply one chosen in hindsight.

Your retarded comments have earned you a place on my coveted ignore list.

I'm honored to be on the obviously long roster of distinguished posters whose arguments you were unable to refute.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma and 7djengo7,

You most definitely have NOT “learned sufficiently” of the Trinity doctrine, for you can only regurgitate a pitiful caricature of the Trinity that has nothing at all to do with the Trinity doctrine. It’s a total misunderstanding and mispresentation, and from a non-linguistic hyper-conceptual and deductive perspective that has nothing to do with truth.
Unless and until you can accruately represent the authentic Trinity doctrine, you have no business attempting to address the topic of Theology Proper and the Trinity. Full stop.
You are the prototype for building lame faux-strawmen. You have no idea how poorly you disfigure any recognizable facsimile of the Trinity doctrine.
You really should take a seat, but you can’t and won’t. That’s how neophytes are.

I had to look at my Webster’s Dictionary, print edition to find what the word neophyte represents. I suppose you are referring to definition 3, not 1 or 2. But you are wrong as I am willing to cease responding to you if you continue to answer as above.

You did not answer the question I asked you: What would you say makes something a being?
Of every thing you consider to be a being, what about that thing would you say makes it a being? If there is any thing which you would say is not a being, what about that thing would you say makes it not a being?

I am not interested in chasing your logic here. What is wrong with what I stated concerning the definition of a human being and a Divine Being? Both of you have not discussed Psalm 110:1.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma and 7djengo7, I had to look at my Webster’s Dictionary, print edition to find what the word neophyte represents. I suppose you are referring to definition 3, not 1 or 2. But you are wrong as I am willing to cease responding to you if you continue to answer as above.

Again, you miss the point. You have NO idea what the Trinity doctrine is, yet you continue to caricature it to your false misrepresnetations.

It’s a simple fact of truth. Being willing to cease responding to me is irrelevant. You should remain silent about Theology Proper until you have appropriately and properly understood something you know nothing of... the Trinity doctrine.

Nothing you have EVER said represents the Trinity. It’s all really bad strawman nothingness. You don’t know what an hypostasis (a crucial scriptural term) is, nor the express image (charakter) of an hypostasis is. And this is just one of many word meanings that you not only don’t know, but have substituted some other concept for.

This is why you’re a novice. A complete neophyte. And you refuse to be changed by the Word for what it actually says and means, instead continuing in total parody of doctrine/s. You should stand down. For YEARS.

Kind regards
Trevor

Again, you always close with yet another word you don’t understand except in shallow English fallacy. “Kind” does NOT mean what you think it does, just like most other words you use.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

Again, you miss the point. You have NO idea what the Trinity doctrine is, yet you continue to caricature it to your false misrepresnetations.
It’s a simple fact of truth. Being willing to cease responding to me is irrelevant. You should remain silent about Theology Proper until you have appropriately and properly understood something you know nothing of... the Trinity doctrine.
Nothing you have EVER said represents the Trinity. It’s all really bad strawman nothingness. You don’t know what an hypostasis (a crucial scriptural term) is, nor the express image (charakter) of an hypostasis is. And this is just one of many word meanings that you not only don’t know, but have substituted some other concept for.
This is why you’re a novice. A complete neophyte. And you refuse to be changed by the Word for what it actually says and means, instead continuing in total parody of doctrine/s. You should stand down. For YEARS.
Again, you always close with yet another word you don’t understand except in shallow English fallacy. “Kind” does NOT mean what you think it does, just like most other words you use.

As I stated before in my previous Post:

I am willing to cease responding to you if you continue to answer as above.

But I suggest that you do not discuss the Scriptures on this subject but claim authority from your learning of the Church fathers and their unscriptural expositions. Next time that you rant I will not answer. Btw I thought I had better check the word “rant” before posting in case you are an authority on this word as well as the word “kind”. Perhaps “rant” is too strong here, but I will leave it in my reply as well as the word “kind”. Did you look up the first two meanings of “neophyte”? they do not seem to be that bad. I hope to discuss the Scriptures with others nevertheless, whether on this thread, this forum or elsewhere as opportunity presents. Again you did not respond to Psalm 110:1. Perhaps you may like to quote what the Church fathers stated about this verse. I am not sure if Apple7's unusual treatment of this verse is derived from these "fathers", where he advocated that "right hand" in Psalm 110:1 is the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with his view? or is Jesus the Son of God actually seated at the right hand of God, His Father? Two Beings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Silent Hunter]

Again, you always close with yet another word you don’t understand except in shallow English fallacy. “Kind” does NOT mean what you think it does, just like most other words you use.

Sure it does. "Kind", as an adjective, means exactly how Trevor intends.

generous, helpful, and caring about other people:

She’s a kind, thoughtful person.
It was kind of you to give me your seat.
It's very kind of you to help us.
Please be kind to your sister!
Would you be kind enough to/so kind as to close the door?