God's Truth
New member
You have done no such thing. Read your last replies to me. They are excuses as to why you can't go against me.
Pops refutes the biblical concept of the Trinity
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
You have done no such thing. Read your last replies to me. They are excuses as to why you can't go against me.
This conversation has been going on for more than the past few posts, GT.
No, I'm done, have been done, trying to convince you of my position. It's not worth the effort.
God's Truth
New member
I never ever tire of speaking God's Truth.
You wore out why? Because there is no life in what you speak.
More boasting, and in your own name.
JESUS is truth. You are not.
Nope. Because it's difficult to help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
God's Truth
New member
What else do you have besides insults? If one doesn't have truth, they resort to insults.
God's Truth
New member
I love talking about God's Truth. If the trinity doctrine was true, I would defend it and never stop. Trying to defend the trinity doctrine is when I realized it was false.
God the Father isn't a Person who is not a Spirit sharing a Spirit with two other Persons.
God the Father is Spirit and came as a Son and His Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
God the Father isn't a Person who is not a Spirit sharing a Spirit with two other Persons.
God the Father is Spirit and came as a Son and His Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
glorydaz
Well-known member
God is a spirit. John 4:24KJV
When you use the word "has", you show you don't understand what the Bible says about God.
Jesus had a human spirit just as all humans do. 1 Thess. 5:23KJV
God IS a spirit. He doesn't HAVE a spirit. The Word was with and was God (a spirit), and became flesh to dwell among us. John 1:1, John 1:14
There is scripture to support what I say, but you have none to support what you say.
What does that tell you?
popsthebuilder
New member
GOD is Spirit.
good job.
So if GOD is Spirit as the holy Bible says then why do you say GOD is three persons?
and if you think GOD is three persons and the Bible defines a person as a soul, body, and spirit then your description of GOD as three separate persons would by default also either give GOD three separate spirits or two person with no spirit.
You know GOD isn't a person right.
I can show you the validity of my words using scripture all day.....but it would be a waste as you should know the scripture at least as well as me; so you are just playing dumb.
GOD isn't man or a respector of men.....but you would have us think GOD is three persons or people. Polytheistic idol worship sounds pretty descriptive.
Let me guess; you think one must believe in the trinity as per your doctrine to be saved?....?
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
And you speak to others about their humility?
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
According to what you said then the "father" is not GOD.
logic often?
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
popsthebuilder
New member
The same can be said of persons from each camp.
Is it salvific? How if so.....how is it blaspheme of THE Holy Spirit of GOD to deny that the traditional coeternal, trinity doctrine is truth please?
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
So you can't see the "And" at the beginning of my post?
popsthebuilder
New member
Deleted
Last edited:
popsthebuilder
New member
That doesn't too much matter when one must add three to get GOD.....really it does. There shouldn't be an "and"
Consubstantial does not mean separate or coeternal, but of the same substance; singular in substance. What is that substance? The Holy Spirit of GOD.
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Lon
Well-known member
1) It doesn't matter if I answered one of your questions, that post was not to me.
2) My point is, ever shall be, that whoever this Jesus is, WE better get Him right. Going off willy nilly or ignoring painstaking scripture study, is a very bad idea. Whoever this Jesus is, that we say we love and serve, we better get to know Him, and know Him right.
3) Yes, I believe if someone does not take that incredibly seriously, you bet I think that is dishonoring specifically because He must tell us who He is. We do not tell Him who He is other than what we are sure about. To me, this discussion is life and death. Matthew 7: 21-23
Lon
Well-known member
God is THE Spirit? If everything comes from Him (Colossians 1:17) and nothing exists that exists, we have a problem between our separation and understanding Oneness. The Son prays, for instance, that we become "one" as He and the Father are one. It is an expression well beyond the Jehovah Witness understanding, which is superficial and tainted by autonomous men. There is a literal Oneness, to Father and Son such that the Bible frequently equates Father, Son, Spirit, God, all as the same with no apology, no superficial explanation. The Triune position simply says "yes, I see One God and worship Him only" and "Yes, I recognize Father, Son, and Spirit are somehow Him, yet there is a separateness that is not feigned or pretended. The Father knew something when the Son did not at one occasion. The Son talked with the Father.
Therefore, it is incredibly superficial, in our opinion, to equate the Father as the Son, and it is superficial to miss the equated oneness. John 1:1 imho is said so well and simply, that one cannot miss the clarity of the Word being 1) "with God" and 2) "was God." Such cannot be said, such as a JW says, that Jesus was 'a' god, nor can it be conveyed that the Word was only God. It is very clear in the text, both are completely wrong to their simpleton conclusions. Nobody can escape: "was with God" AND "was God." It is simply, clearly, what it says. Somehow both statements are completely true. That is what a Trinitarian/Triune advocate believes. It is the definition of our position, as simply as it will ever be defined.
Not what is meant by "God in three persons." I realize some do believe in 3 gods, but that isn't Trinitarian, but tritheism. Proper Trinitarians only believe one God exists. Many believe this but may not be able to explain that well and some are functionally tritheists/polytheists.
Not exactly true. You can show reasons for your interpretations, but these must face scrutiny of one's peers.
It must be provable true, or else it is a whim. "It could mean this" is more honest than "It does mean this" when there is doubt. As I said, John 1:1 is clear.
As I said, some people do describe tritheism when trying to express trinitarianism. Tritheism is not Trinitarian and really leads back to Jehovah witness polytheism ideas and other foggy theology and opinions.
Yes but for all of us, lest we are trusting in ourselves for salvation. We'd be making it up at that point. ONLY Christ can save us, and not we ourselves, thus trusting in Him is the sole work of Him alone else we are just following our own theology-made-by-us, our own-gospel. Tritheism and Trinity are different. The one understands that Father, Son, and Spirit are God, but not "Father, Son, and Spirit is God." Perhaps they do not grasp that, or perhaps they are trying to ensure that people realize the Lord Jesus Christ is God, such that '-une' is forgotten or not grasped.
I'm not sure if any of this helps with perspective, but I hope it does. The triune doctrine needs a careful study in order for someone to be able to explain Him that others grasp what is being expressed. -Lon
popsthebuilder
New member
I appreciate the effort and seeming sincerity of your posts of late.
You brought up the Word and that the Word was both with and was indeed GOD.
To me though, such doesn't automatically mean trinity.
The Word Is GOD is the Spirit is the power by which GOD affects HIS will on HIS creation.
What I am saying is that I equate the Word to the Spirit seeing as how both are descriptors of GOD almighty.
I agree that knowing Christ is of the utmost importance.....salvific if you will; but that doesn't mean I believe the trinity as salvific. Now; that doesn't mean I do not believe in a form of trinitarianism; just that I don't find such a believe in scripture personally nor the belief in such as salvific per scripture or the conscience.
It is refreshing to speak to someone without negativity being hurled around needlessly.
peace
Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk
Lon
Well-known member
I believe I've not but spoken in sincerity with you, because I believe you are sincere in your beliefs. I don't believe banter would serve you or I when discussing the truths of God, so I've endeavored to never trivialize discussion with you. My apologies if that tenor was ever less than.
It does. I appreciate that you do not think so (more in a moment)...
...there is not a literary contextual way anybody else can stretch John 1:1 :nono:
Honestly, anybody with a literary degree knows emphatically what John 1:1 is about. Simply, it is about Jesus. Every book you ever read will never start with an unrelated character and then somehow randomly start talking about another. If a character is used to introduce another character, this is clearly marked with nothing vague (King Arthur for instance). This does tremendous damage to an historical text however and frankly, is illiterate random inconsistent thinking. There is a reason most cultists are unlearned. I realize JW's think God chose the foolish things to confound the wise, but that is out of context too. Sadly, JW's and other cults are ignorant cherry-pickers looking for what is good for them or sounds good to them and they functionally have poor grasps of Language Arts (English when I was in school). Context drives interpretation and the better one is able to grasp context, the less they spout off on their uninformed opinion because the text itself clearly states and makes plain what it wants us to know. This is akin to a detective rather than a rooking doing guesswork at a crime scene. The veteran cop is supposed to read the scene, not guess the scene. It doesn't matter what it 'looks' like on a quick perusal. He refuses and will not come to a conclusion until he/she has read the entire scene. John clearly says "the Word became flesh." Later? "because you (Jesus) a mere man, claim to be God!" A little later? "...before Abraham was, I AM" (verb disagreement and only a rookie or illiterate would/could miss that, it is plain as day). Further? "Thomas said to Jesus, 'You are the Lord of me and God of me." Only an illiterate or fool could mistake that for Thomas using the Lord's name in vain. "Thou Shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain."
I can't tell you definitively that. I'm convinced whoever Christ is Lord of, will come to know their Lord, therefore it may indeed point to a salvific issue. Matthew 7:21-23 is about whom He knows, but conversely, who knows Him as well. The goal of our faith is to know our Lord.
Glad to hear you are triune. I hope others take note. PPS was lambasted a bit on TOL, though I'm convinced after some discussion at length, that he too is a biblical Trinitarian. Sometimes I think the studied are wrestling rather, with the laity for biblical understanding of God's nature. As I said, sometimes their expressions are tritheism rather than Trinitarian. I generally chalk that up to a need to grow in understanding and expressing accurately, the triune nature of God. Mysteries such as John 1:1, are hard to explain. "was" AND "was with" are hard competing concepts.
Sincerely, when I try to converse with you over these mattes, it is my desire to speak of important matters with clarity and sincerity. I can but present my own studies in the scriptures from my own background and education, as well as represent what I believe is the standard of the Body of Christ consisting of my elders and peers. In Him :e4e: