ECT Our triune God

[-FoC-]

The Trinity
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that Jesus IS God and to show that the Holy Spirit IS God and therefore the Trinity teaching is scriptural truth.

Supporting Evidence

1.0
Is Jesus God ?

John shows us who Jesus is; the Word who is with God and is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
(Joh 1 KJV)

Isaiah shows us exactly who Jesus is.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
(Joh 20:28 MKJV)

Yet Jesus is distinct from the Father...
-The Father knows what the Son does not;

But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father.
(Mark 13:32 LITV)

But the Father has given to the Son to judge;

For the Father judges no one, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
(Joh 5:22)

...showing clear distinction between them.

And there is distinction between the Son and the Spirit;

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
(Luk 12:10)

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. And whoever says a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the coming one.
(Mat 12:31-32)

Whomever blasphemes the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven.
This proves conclusively that there IS some distinction.


The pre-existence of Jesus

And now, O Father, glorify Me alongside Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
(Joh 17:5 EMTV)

What then if you should see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?
(Joh 6:62 EMTV)

And no one has gone up into heaven except He who came down out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.
(Joh 3:13 EMTV)

I came forth from the Father and I have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and I am going to the Father."
(Joh 16:28 EMTV)

1.5

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
(Colossians 2:9 EMTV)


Godhead
G2320
θεότης
theotēs
Thayer Definition:
1) deity
1a) the state of being God, Godhead


G2320
θεότης
theotēs
theh-ot'-ace
From G2316; divinity (abstractly): - godhead.

REGARDLESS of how the word theotes was RENDERED, its MEANING and INTENT is 'divinity'...ie Jesus Christ is DIVINE...ie a DEITY....ie GOD.
If Jesus IS God yet Jesus does NOT KNOW the day and hour of His return but ONLY the Father does (aka GOD) then there MUST BE some DISTINCTION between them...even tho BOTH ARE God.


2.0
Is the Holy Spirit 'God' ?

Scripture shows that the Spirit of GOD came down upon Christ...

And having been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him.
(Mat 3:16 EMTV)

And Luke shows that this IS the Holy Spirit.

and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came out of heaven, saying, "You are My beloved Son; in You I have found delight."
(Luk 3:22 EMTV)

Thus the evidence shows that the 'Spirit of God' and the 'Holy Spirit' are one and the same.

3.0
And here we tie it all together.

And having been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him. And behold, a voice came out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I have found delight."
(Matthew 3:16-17 EMTV)

1. Jesus, the Son who is called 'Mighty God' in Isaiah.
2. The Spirit descending in the form of a dove, who is the Spirit OF God.
3. The Father speaking from heaven, obvious enough.

 

[Colossians]

1 John 5:

[7]"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

So three absolutely distinct persons with no overlap whatsoever (hence the scholars' capitalisation of their titles), who are at the same time, one person with no segregation of persons whatsoever, for it is said that they are "one".

That this "one" which the three are, does not merely relate "one in agreement", but rather, "one existentially", is born out in the fact that, when referring to a parallel on earth using three closely related substances - the spirit, the water and the blood - John realises these cannot be said to be one, but declares them to merely "agree in one". So:

[8] "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

That is, the "one" of v7 is tacitly declared to mean "one existentially", by virtue of the fact that John could find no exact parallel on earth, indicating such by his deliberate and cognitive use of the (mere) "agree in one" for the things on earth.

And so the three who are each independently one existentially on their own (which is forced by the simple mentioning of them as distinct persons with distinct titles), are at exactly the same time together one existentially, with no severalness whatsoever.

Which is in accord with what I have pointed out at post 17: the Trinity is best defined when it is maximally self-contradictory.




The Father greater than the Son, and yet the Son equal with the Father.

Many think that Jesus' referring to the Father as being greater than He (the Son), was simply by virtue of Jesus' being in the flesh and having therefore left His glory behind for a season: they think of it as a temporary situation.

But rather, Jesus was referring to the eternal state of things: the Father is forever greater than the Son by virtue of His being the Father and not the Son: fathers are called "fathers" for a reason: they were there first, and gave birth to their sons.

And so we see in scripture that the Father plucked the Son out of His bosom:

"Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom." (Ps 74:11).

And yet we note a very important clue as to the perpetuality of this (i.e. that it is not temporal in substance, but logical, therefore negating any idea that the Son is not as eternal as the Father), for that which the Father plucks out, is the right hand, and the right hand, speaks to authority.

That is, just as it never can be the case that the Father exist without authority, even so it can never be the case that the Father exist without the Son. The Son, therefore, is what we call "eternally begotten", which is to say: "born of the Father and yet never being unborn".

And in fact therein lies the equality of the Son with the Father. For the right hand of authority, is only known to be so by virtue of its power, and it is declared of Christ that He is the wisdom and power of God.

That is, although the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of first principles (as outlined above), the Son is neverthless completely equal with the Father in that He demonstrates the Father perfectly and exhaustively.

We might therefore say, and using a linguistic paradigm, that the Father is the semantic, and the Son the pragmatic.

And so just as when Paul says of the dispensing of grace: "to the Jew first and also to the Gentile", he intends not "to the Jew first and secondly to the Gentile", but rather, "to the Jew first and also first to the Gentile", so too in like fashion we will ascribe Godhood to the Father first, and also first to the Son.

And given that we only know this to be so, by virtue of being told it by the Holy Spirit, we will necessarily also say, but this time by permission: "and also first to the Holy Spirit".

"By permission", we say, because the preeminent distinguishing characteristic of the Third Person, is that He never speaks of Himself, but only of Jesus and His Father. So the wonderfulness of His ministry.

Praise God.

 

[Krsto]

I started this thread with this also in mind:

It seems to confirm the contentious nature suspected as I gave clear posting instruction to avoid debate and asked anti-trinitarians not to post.

Well this sure is a boring thread you've got here Lon. I suggest we start a new invitation only trinity discussion thread, 3 or 4 of the most knowledgable and reasonable on each side. I suggest csuguy (who actually is Arian) and Pierac if he can keep from being strident, and myself on one side. I don't know who to suggest on your side but each of us would have to approve of the members and I would not approve of godrulz as he is a lousy debater. I'm not sure about AMR, I've never in the over one year I've been here seen him actually engage in a discussion so I don't know if he is capable.

Whadayathink?

 

[Lon]

Well this sure is a boring thread you've got here Lon. I suggest we start a new invitation only trinity discussion thread, 3 or 4 of the most knowledgable and reasonable on each side. I suggest csuguy (who actually is Arian) and Pierac if he can keep from being strident, and myself on one side. I don't know who to suggest on your side but each of us would have to approve of the members and I would not approve of godrulz as he is a lousy debater. I'm not sure about AMR, I've never in the over one year I've been here seen him actually engage in a discussion so I don't know if he is capable.

Whadayathink?

He is certainly capable (more qualified than I actually). A One on One in the Battle Ring with him, if he's up for it, would get my vote. I agree with you that it needs a cogent and stellar discussion.

 

[Krsto]

He is certainly capable (more qualified than I actually). A One on One in the Battle Ring with him, if he's up for it, would get my vote. I agree with you that it needs a cogent and stellar discussion.

Who else ya got?

 

[godrulz]

Isn't it absurd, when asked not to post here, they do anyway. As if their own threads aren't enough this one needs hijacking?

They are guests on an evangelical forum. They are being disruptive and should be banned for a season. Their Arian views were condemned centuries ago as heretical.

The triune view is biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. It is a glorious truth attacked by Satan through pseudo-Christian cults like Mormonism, JWs, Unitarians, Christadelphians, etc.

Oneness groups are also divisive and guilty, but at least they strongly promote the Deity of Christ, the salvific truth.

AMR is the man (my feewings are hurt that I am a lousy debater).

It can be shown from Scripture that there is only one true God by nature. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is personal/God. It can also be shown that the Father is not the person of the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father.

The trinity is the only way to explain the biblical parameters of God's self-revelation.

If we agree on monotheism, then the personality of the Holy Spirit and the Deity of Christ should be established first (it is too big a jump for the whole trinity understanding for some people). We can also easily handle the classic Arian objections that JWs use (Col. 1:15 firstborn; Rev. 3:14 begining; Jn. 14:28 greater; Prov. 8 wisdom; I Cor. 15 subject; I Cor. 11 head; Jn. begotten, etc.).

 

[Krsto]

They are guests on an evangelical forum. They are being disruptive and should be banned for a season. Their Arian views were condemned centuries ago as heretical.

The triune view is biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. It is a glorious truth attacked by Satan through pseudo-Christian cults like Mormonism, JWs, Unitarians, Christadelphians, etc.

Oneness groups are also divisive and guilty, but at least they strongly promote the Deity of Christ, the salvific truth.

AMR is the man (my feewings are hurt that I am a lousy debater).

It can be shown from Scripture that there is only one true God by nature. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is personal/God. It can also be shown that the Father is not the person of the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father.

The trinity is the only way to explain the biblical parameters of God's self-revelation.

If we agree on monotheism, then the personality of the Holy Spirit and the Deity of Christ should be established first (it is too big a jump for the whole trinity understanding for some people). We can also easily handle the classic Arian objections that JWs use (Col. 1:15 firstborn; Rev. 3:14 begining; Jn. 14:28 greater; Prov. 8 wisdom; I Cor. 15 subject; I Cor. 11 head; Jn. begotten, etc.).

So who's more divisive grulz, the one spouting his doctrines yet accepting others as their brothers in Christ or the one spouting his doctrines and calling those who disagree non-Christians?

 

[godrulz]

So who's more divisive grulz, the one spouting his doctrines yet accepting others as their brothers in Christ or the one spouting his doctrines and calling those who disagree non-Christians?

Jesus is the dividing line. Those who worship Him as God are Christians; those who say he is a mere creature are cultists. This is an essential, salvific issue. The person and work of Jesus divides in this case.

As for fellow Christians who oppose cultists, our disagreements over peripheral issues come from a spirit of love and unity based on our common faith in Christ. We are not compromising essential, Christian-defining truth. We are disagreeing over peripheral issues that do not affect our relationship with God or each other.

A Christian and a cultist have a common humanity under God, but we are not both in the family of God if we have diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive Christologies on the basic points.

Guys like csuguy simply cannot understand that there is a difference between a true vs false gospel, the true Christ vs counterfeit Christs, a genuine coin and a counterfeit, worthless coin.

Don't ask me to compromise truth for a false view of luv.

Lon and I vehemently disagree about Calvinism vs Open Theism, yet we will defend the trinity/Deity of Christ to the death. You and I/Lon disagree about the trinity/Deity and will remain divided because we both cannot claim to be true Christians (one is, one is not). I have love and respect and unity with Lon. I have love for you, but not a common bond in Christ.

 

[Nick M]

Jesus is the dividing line. Those who worship Him as God are Christians; those who say he is a mere creature are cultists. This is an essential, salvific issue. The person and work of Jesus divides in this case.

As for fellow Christians who oppose cultists, our disagreements over peripheral issues come from a spirit of love and unity based on our common faith in Christ. We are not compromising essential, Christian-defining truth. We are disagreeing over peripheral issues that do not affect our relationship with God or each other.

A Christian and a cultist have a common humanity under God, but we are not both in the family of God if we have diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive Christologies on the basic points.

Guys like csuguy simply cannot understand that there is a difference between a true vs false gospel, the true Christ vs counterfeit Christs, a genuine coin and a counterfeit, worthless coin.

Don't ask me to compromise truth for a false view of luv.

Lon and I vehemently disagree about Calvinism vs Open Theism, yet we will defend the trinity/Deity of Christ to the death. You and I/Lon disagree about the trinity/Deity and will remain divided because we both cannot claim to be true Christians (one is, one is not). I have love and respect and unity with Lon. I have love for you, but not a common bond in Christ.

Those that speak in tongues are not in the Body of Christ.

 

[godrulz]

Those that speak in tongues are not in the Body of Christ.

Paul was not in the Body of Christ?! Have you finally given up MAD? Good for you. There are probably men of God that you quote and admire who speak in tongues. Good thing you are not Judge Jesus (being judge judy does not count, godplayer).

The charismatic work of the Spirit was evidenced in the OT, in the life and ministry of Jesus, in the early church, yet you think it/He is irrelevant for the Church Age?! Talk about a false teacher.

There is no exegetical basis for cessationism (nor KJV-only, nor MAD).

Why has it been so quiet on TOL? It has got boring. The only thing happening in the anti-trinitarians.

I see you weren't raptured either. I guess we did not do enough good works?:rapture:

 

[Krsto]

Jesus is the dividing line. Those who worship Him as God are Christians; those who say he is a mere creature are cultists. This is an essential, salvific issue. The person and work of Jesus divides in this case.

As for fellow Christians who oppose cultists, our disagreements over peripheral issues come from a spirit of love and unity based on our common faith in Christ. We are not compromising essential, Christian-defining truth. We are disagreeing over peripheral issues that do not affect our relationship with God or each other.

A Christian and a cultist have a common humanity under God, but we are not both in the family of God if we have diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive Christologies on the basic points.

Guys like csuguy simply cannot understand that there is a difference between a true vs false gospel, the true Christ vs counterfeit Christs, a genuine coin and a counterfeit, worthless coin.

Don't ask me to compromise truth for a false view of luv.

Lon and I vehemently disagree about Calvinism vs Open Theism, yet we will defend the trinity/Deity of Christ to the death. You and I/Lon disagree about the trinity/Deity and will remain divided because we both cannot claim to be true Christians (one is, one is not). I have love and respect and unity with Lon. I have love for you, but not a common bond in Christ.

So I'll take that as a nearly tacit admission that you are the one who is being divisive since you are defending your divisiveness. I didn't ask you to defend yourself, just recognize you are the divisive one, not the ones who are spouting their doctrines with which you disagree. When you have one finger pointing at us you have three fingers pointing at yourself, as they say.

 

[godrulz]

Using your logic, an atheist can say I am being divisive because I am defending theism against atheism. The divider is the truth of God, not the messenger so much. I cannot affirm atheism, so why is the atheist not the one being divisive and I am just standing for truth?

If I say 2+2=4, am I guilt of negative divisiveness for not agreeing with the kid who says 2+2=5?

This generation is buying into the lie of relativism vs absolutism.

The bottom line is that Jesus divides people between children of God and enemies of God. Just because I agree with Jesus makes me divisive? If so, fine.

If I am dead wrong and causing unnecessary confusion or division among the brethren, then you might have a point. If I was insisting that speaking in tongues or KJV-only is necessary for salvation, then I would accept a pejorative use of divisive. If I am sharing the gospel, then the gospel is dividing people, not me.

 

[Gill White]

Those that speak in tongues are not in the Body of Christ.

Nick, when a person gets born again of God's spirit, the evidence of the Spirit's presence is given to each person and has been shown to us in His Word. We believe it, confess it, and renew our mind to it:

Act 2:4
(4) All the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.

Act 4:30
(30) Show your power by healing, performing miracles, and doing amazing things through the power and the name of your holy servant Jesus."


Joh 17:17
(17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Speaking in tongues is an evidence of the Spirit's presence:

1Co 12:7-12
(7) The evidence of the Spirit's presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
(8) The Spirit gives one person the ability to speak with wisdom. The same Spirit gives another person the ability to speak with knowledge.
(9) To another person the same Spirit gives courageous faith. To another person the same Spirit gives the ability to heal.
(10) Another can work miracles. Another can speak what God has revealed. Another can tell the difference between spirits. Another can speak in different kinds of languages. Another can interpret languages.
(11) There is only one Spirit who does all these things by giving what God wants to give to each person.

God bless you
(12) For example, the body is one unit and yet has many parts. As all the parts form one body, so it is with Christ.

I praise and thank God, through the name of His servant Jesus, for giving us this wonderful gift, through His Son.

 

[Krsto]

Using your logic, an atheist can say I am being divisive because I am defending theism against atheism. The divider is the truth of God, not the messenger so much. I cannot affirm atheism, so why is the atheist not the one being divisive and I am just standing for truth?

If I say 2+2=4, am I guilt of negative divisiveness for not agreeing with the kid who says 2+2=5?

This generation is buying into the lie of relativism vs absolutism.

The bottom line is that Jesus divides people between children of God and enemies of God. Just because I agree with Jesus makes me divisive? If so, fine.

If I am dead wrong and causing unnecessary confusion or division among the brethren, then you might have a point. If I was insisting that speaking in tongues or KJV-only is necessary for salvation, then I would accept a pejorative use of divisive. If I am sharing the gospel, then the gospel is dividing people, not me.

You are unnecessarily causing division (and possibly confusion for some, but not me) because you can not allow a person to simply believe the Gospel message, but instead you strain at a knat with your Christology, insisting everybody understand and agree with your very technically and narrowly defined understanding in order for them to be Christian brothers in your mind. You are not "sharing the Gospel," you are defining the Gospel in such a way as to exclude those who accept it in different terms than yourself, all the while using as your justification that Paul spoke of a "different Gospel," and "different Jesus," ignoring the context of his statements and what Paul had in mind when he said those things, but rather put words in Paul's mouth that he would not accept if he were here today, and also ignoring the fact that whenever the Gospel was preached in the 4 Gospels and Acts simple statements as to what a person must believe were given without any qualifications or understanding of the hypostatic union theory which came hundreds of years later.

So yeah, you are dead wrong, and you are a heretic in the true meaning of the word, because a heretic biblically defined is one who causes hairetikos, or division.

 

[godrulz]

The incarnation, Deity, death, resurrection of Christ is core gospel truth. You simply cannot have a false Christ or deny His resurrection and be preaching the true gospel.

As I understand it, you will not say that Jesus is Almighty God, uncreated Creator, equal with the Father by nature, names, attributes, etc. Thus, your view is Arian-like in that Christ is a subordinate creature of some sort. Talking about a divine man or God inhabiting a man is not the same as saying Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

This is not a peripheral debate like Calvinism vs Arminianism. It is core, essential, salvific truth defined by Jesus/Bible/God, not just me. Jesus and Paul did not compromise the gospel, but you don't even understand that the identity of Christ is not negotiable, the difference between Christ and a non-existent counterfeit.

Using your logic, Islam and Christianity are equally valid ways to God because they both believe in 'Christ'.

 

[Krsto]

The incarnation, Deity, death, resurrection of Christ is core gospel truth. You simply cannot have a false Christ or deny His resurrection and be preaching the true gospel.

As I understand it, you will not say that Jesus is Almighty God, uncreated Creator, equal with the Father by nature, names, attributes, etc. Thus, your view is Arian-like in that Christ is a subordinate creature of some sort. Talking about a divine man or God inhabiting a man is not the same as saying Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

This is not a peripheral debate like Calvinism vs Arminianism. It is core, essential, salvific truth defined by Jesus/Bible/God, not just me. Jesus and Paul did not compromise the gospel, but you don't even understand that the identity of Christ is not negotiable, the difference between Christ and a non-existent counterfeit.

Using your logic, Islam and Christianity are equally valid ways to God because they both believe in 'Christ'.

You keep wanting to compare what I believe with the Muslims. The Muslims don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, as defined by either one of us, and don't believe he rose from the dead, which is an essential doctrine.

Belief in the incarnation and deity as you define it is not essential.

I will not say that Jesus is Almighty God because the bible doesn't say that. That is a derived doctrine, not a stated truth. I have asked you a hundred times to show me otherwise and every time you prove my point. That's one reason you are a lousy debater.

And yes, I believe Jesus is subordinate, and so do you, if you accept Php. 2 to mean a deity gave up his deity to become a man.

By your own standards you are not a Christians because you have a different Christ than the one in the bible.

So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The incarnation, Deity, death, resurrection of Christ is core gospel truth. You simply cannot have a false Christ or deny His resurrection and be preaching the true gospel.

As I understand it, you will not say that Jesus is Almighty God, uncreated Creator, equal with the Father by nature, names, attributes, etc. Thus, your view is Arian-like in that Christ is a subordinate creature of some sort. Talking about a divine man or God inhabiting a man is not the same as saying Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

This is not a peripheral debate like Calvinism vs Arminianism. It is core, essential, salvific truth defined by Jesus/Bible/God, not just me. Jesus and Paul did not compromise the gospel, but you don't even understand that the identity of Christ is not negotiable, the difference between Christ and a non-existent counterfeit.

Using your logic, Islam and Christianity are equally valid ways to God because they both believe in 'Christ'.

*
Beautifully said

 

[jerzy]

This thread is specifically for triune believers. No other need or should post here.

I'm personally boycotting these cultists threads against our view. I have found none of them are here to learn a thing and they certainly don't make a cogent or compelling presentation. Its a waste of bandwidth and time from my experience. This thread is for posting material to help us on our way.

Lon.

Are you not admitting that you have something to hide?

Don't you recognise that the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Why you disallow the truth to be spoken on this Christian forum?

Why are you boycotting the written word of God like this?

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Do you find this text offensive, Lon?

Are you a Christian or an impostor, Lon?

You have shown your true colours in "Is Trinity and Satan God's word or pagan theology" to open your exclusive thread in order to slander the true worshippers of the Father the only true God without giving them chance of defence?

Is this not the old school where the "heretics" were destroyed so that pagan worship of idols could be introduced into Christianity without hindrance?

 

[jerzy]

Keypurr, please also note the OP and comply with its directions.
I'm sure it is hard to resist, but this thread isn't made for debate with you guys. There are plenty of threads you've made for that. You needn't clog up one that asks you politely not to do so.

This is a Christian forum for them who recognise that the Bible is inspired by God.

You have no right to call yourself a Christian while rejecting the written word of God substituting it with your own “views” and disallowing the word of God to be quoted here from the Trinitarian translations.

 

[jerzy]

Isn't it absurd, when asked not to post here, they do anyway. As if their own threads aren't enough this one needs hijacking?

We are quoting from the Trinitarian translations here which you seem to find abhorring.

What is your reason for this, Lon?