Cross Reference
New member
Hey, White Noise! When is your book: "Polywoggle for Dummies" coming out?
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Hey, White Noise! When is your book: "Polywoggle for Dummies" coming out?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yeah, you're looking to the physical raising from the dead instead of the resurrection of life unto a new man in Christ. All the works of man's hands. Pagans and witch doctors have raised the dead, and even many of the alleged dead-raisings are invalid. Few, if any, are after more than a few hours.
And those allegedly raising the dead are mostly charlatans and Kabbalists, etc.
If you're ever spiritually raised from the dead, then come talk to me about physically raising the dead.
BTW... Have YOU ever physically raised the dead?
Yeah... I thought not.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yeah, that's all ya got. A little distraction of ad hominem. White Noise, yourself ya ancient heretic.
Go practice your voodoo in a local cemetery. You might have some success. But probably not.
Name those names of the dead who have been raised. Tell us about Heidi Baker (and her production company named after a mythological goddess) and all the other charlatan mysticists.
Cross Reference
New member
You think alot of things for a kid your age.
Changing your doctrine does not change your experience of receiving salvation.
LA
Lon
Well-known member
Caught up with many thank you's
Caught up with many thank you's
I started with thank you's on page 63, and then page 68 wrapped it up to that far. It took me a couple of years but I caught up three years here on page 135 (updated yesterday), and moved on to page 280 (done today) and now, finally am finishing up in this post.
Thank you 1mind1spirit for agreeing with us more often in thread
Thank you JosephR for asking thoughtful questions (and befriending me)
Thank you LazyAfternoon for asking questions and I think honestly trying to serve the intent of the OP though opposed to our doctrine
Thank you brewmama for fielding questions about the mother of God
Thank you Nang for coming and fielding a few questions and your support
Yet once again, thank you mods for your service and help.
And again if I missed anybody apologies and thank you.
Whew!
Caught up with many thank you's
Just about there
I started with thank you's on page 63, and then page 68 wrapped it up to that far. It took me a couple of years but I caught up three years here on page 135 (updated yesterday), and moved on to page 280 (done today) and now, finally am finishing up in this post.
Thank you 1mind1spirit for agreeing with us more often in thread
Thank you JosephR for asking thoughtful questions (and befriending me)
Thank you LazyAfternoon for asking questions and I think honestly trying to serve the intent of the OP though opposed to our doctrine
Thank you brewmama for fielding questions about the mother of God
Thank you Nang for coming and fielding a few questions and your support
Yet once again, thank you mods for your service and help.
And again if I missed anybody apologies and thank you.
Whew!
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I see. So YOU haven't raised the dead. I knew that awready.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Obfuscation. I didn't change my doctrine, I changed my affiliation. And you're part of why.
Can you confess that all of Jesus Christ died at the cross and all of Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by his Father?
LA
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Absolutely and unequivocally... YES. And it's because I know what thanatos (death) means, rather than merely having a presuppositional and conceptualized false comprehension of what it means.
Theanthropos was not divinity and humanity blended or adhered together. You don't understand Christology OR the Passion of our Lord and what His death was and meant.
THIS is why I contend that Unitarians and Arians and others are devoid of salvific faith. You don't understand that God, in Christ, laid down His psuche (soul-life) for mankind. You don't know the price that was paid. You think it was only bios (life), not psuche (life).
You think wrong of others.
Why must you contend that others are dumb so you can appear right to yourself?
Most all of the Trinitarian world believes Christ was a blend of the divine with the man at Christs birth.
The Word made flesh required the almost continuous ministry of the Father to his Son for 30 years with testings before He could be declared full of grace and truth.
It was the Son who died, not the Father nor His Word.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
LA
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Incorrect.
Nothing I say has anything to do with "dumb" versus something else; but is always in reference to ignorance and its accompanying passive or active arrogance. Like yours.
I'm most certainly not representative of the "most all of the Trinitarian world". I oppose multi-hypostaticism as the foundation for the Trinity, among other internal minutiae that I validly and exegetically challenge.
That's part of my own criticism of alleged professing Trinitarians. But just because many perceive Christology according to what you're saying, it doesn't mean that is authentic historical and orthodox Chalcedonian Christology according to Cappadocian Theology Proper. They're mistaken if that's their represenatation of the Trinity.
There can be no Nestorian, Apollinarian, or Eutychian Christology claimed as authentic; with provision only conditionally made for Cyrillian Christology. You actually don't know what's historically right or wrong, either. That's the problem with non-Trinitarians attempting to critique the Trinity doctrine when they themselves don't know it and presume they do.
This may be applicable to His humanity in some sense, but that's not really the point of Christology at its core.
I never said otherwise, and would not. I'm also not ignorant of what thanatos (death) is, unlike you and the majority of all others (including most modern professing Trinitarians who actually aren't).
This is not proof-texting for the Unitarian fallacy. Sorry.
Your manner of posting tells me you do not walk very close with the Truth.
LA
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Since you're an extreme heretic according to every age of the Christian Faith for nearly two millennia, your subjective opinion as judgment doesn't mean anything.
What I've had to realize is that it's modern language and culture that has influcenced today's professing Trinitarians, and that many could be subtly corrected from their functional Tritheism if properly instructed on the historical Faith.
My mistake for years has been to position myself outside of orthodoxy to challenge what I understand as problems in modernity. I've had to learn to hold my internal challenges "open-handedly" as a minority position, while supporting the best formulaic that has been historically presented and preserved in some form for nearly 1800 years.
If one cannot be profitable to the Body by upholding the authentic Trinitarian Theology Proper of the historical Christian Faith, then one cannot then profitably challenge whatever concerns them about it.
I'm a true Trinitarian with valid concerns about the modern interpretation of the historical Trinity doctrine, and thus can offer an exegetical solution. That can only be done within a small window of submitting to authority and appealing to those in some form of leadership at the highest levels of academia and having others fully examine any challenge being made.
Anyone can believe whatever they want. But it's quite another thing to throw 1800 years of Theology Proper under the bus and condescend to others while expecting them to concur with your personal conclusions and convictions.
The more time I spend aligning with the authentic Trinity doctrine, the more I find that my challenges are predominantly about modern misperceptions and misunderstandings; so I have refocused my efforts toward those misrepresentations.
The primary concern should be that moderns represent Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a Tritheistic manner as three individual conjoined beings with distinct centers of sentient volition. But the opposite concern would be to lower consideration of divinity for the Son and Holy Spirit to be anything less than eternal, uncreated, and ontologically inherent.
You have a very "light" view of what divinity is, just as most Unitarians seems to. This diminishes the Son to be primarily a man, though with some bestowed acquisition of higher existence at some point between creation and His ascension. And the Holy Spirit is God's own Spirit, and must somehow also be represented with a "high" form of divinity equal to the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit isn't just a force or the applied energy of God the Father.
You can listen to me or ignore me. But it's futile and wrong to assail the Trinity on such a wholesale basis as you and most of your peers do. Whether it's Unitarians, Arians, Adoptionists, or Sabellians (or others), there is no benefit to the Body of Christ to challenge the Trinity doctrine at such a high level of criticism. You then stand in judgment of all the Patristics and every leader in the Church that have stood for truth at a level that cannot be compared to modern keyboard-warrioring on an internet forum.
None of them were wrong to the degree you insist. So whatever challenges are made must be within certain boundaries, and among those who are qualified in leadership to join in examination of those challenges. That's why my tact has changed to yield to the status quo and pursue mutual examination of my concerns. I anticipate being corrected to some degree, as well as being heard to some degree with acquiescence. But it's much too late to change 1800 years of history, so my own hope is that my assessment will be validated as within the range of orthodoxy by an audience of men who have given their lives to know and teach the authentic doctrines of the Christian Faith.
You're not within those boundaries, and you don't seem to be willing to be. It's one thing to challenge terminology and other minutaie as I have done. It's quite another to insist that every man of God in the Christian Faith has been egregiously wrong for the better part of two millennia.
You should reconsider your importance to yourself as not being on the same scale to the entirety of Christendom. Because it's not. Nor is mine. I've realized that and made the appropriate adjustment in wisdom and prudence. You might want to consider that, too.
Lon
Well-known member
Wow. LA, please listen here. I've said the same but not with this force, as much truth, nor eloquence. It is an important post to spend some contemplation time on and not one to miss.
There is also a lot of time, patience, and grace invested in it! A lot of each.
-Lon
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Define "divine man"; specifically by defining "divine" and "man".
But not know the "divine" man?
Compare "divine" for God and "divine" for man. Is the Holy Spirit "divine"? And if so, is the Holy Spirit "divine" in the manner of God, or "divine" in the manner of man?
More to the point... Was there a created beginning for the Son, Jesus Christ, the "divine" man? Was there a created beginning for the Holy Spirit?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Oh, good grief. Disingenuous obfuscating heretic. Nevermind. You've earned Ignore status for your evasion.
Lon
Well-known member
Esoteric. This is a theology proper thread and it is important to say what you mean and mean what you say. In this case, the Lord Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, exactly as Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:14 portrays Him. Thus, in order to know the Lord Jesus Christ, you must know ALL scriptures that reveal Him. Without this, your knowledge of Him is incomplete and lacking. The Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as man and portrayed as God 100%/100%. There is no way to say anything less or more than scripture gives. If you don't know your bible, fine, keep reading. If you, however, are contesting, this cannot happen in thread. A few have already been removed from here for being unorthodox and contentious. I do not mind you following the intent of the thread otherwise you'll have to start your own. This thread is for and about the Trinity/Triune God.