The biblical Jesus Christ wasn’t a post biblical prerequisite to philosophical premises.

Right Divider

Body part
I use any bible translation. I love this scripture.
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭9:19-23‬ ‭RSV-CI‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/2017/1co.9.19-23.rsv-ci
Quoting irrelevant scripture does not help your case.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Jesus Christ wasn’t God Almighty or did he need to be according to the law of Moses .
So I’m not sure where my words ever suggested what you accuse me of ?
Joh 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 KJV 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.

That scripture is just as clear as can be that you're WRONG and an anti-Christ.
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
Joh 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 KJV 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.

That scripture is just as clear as can be that you're WRONG and an anti-Christ.
I understand how messianic prophecy doesn’t fit your anachronistic post biblical prerequisite.
“I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:26-27, 55‬ ‭KJV‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/jhn.8.26-27,55.kjv
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
I understand how messianic prophecy doesn’t fit your anachronistic post biblical prerequisite.
“I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:26-27, 55‬ ‭KJV‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/jhn.8.26-27,55.kjv
Jesus Christ was faithful to his beliefs not yours 5:17,18 m Luke 24:44.
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
I understand how messianic prophecy doesn’t fit your anachronistic post biblical prerequisite.
“I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:26-27, 55‬ ‭KJV‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/jhn.8.26-27,55.kjv
By the way Jesus Christ never used the NT it was written after the fact under the inspiration of God not men .
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
Jesus never denied that He came in the flesh, but you have denied that He came in the flesh.
Name calling by Jesus Christ ?
“Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking,

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:1, 21-23‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/114/1pe.2.1,21-23.nkjv
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I think that what you are trying to say is that if people read the Bible without the knowledge of the Trinity, they would not not arrive at that conclusion.
It's possible. Witness all the people like you who've not come to that conclusion.
Only when people are told what to parrot do they see the Trinity in the Bible.
Begging the question.
I believe Leighton Flowers mentioned this about Calvinism. Once people are told about it, they have difficulty seeing any other interpretation.
Serious question: Is it not like this for you? Are you, being Nontrinitarian, have difficulty seeing any other interpretation? Or is it easy for you to see the Trinity?
That being said, I doubt you are going to be successful with this tactic and you might want to read more first. Start talking to people rather than at them. And try to be a less condemning in your tone.

Unless you just want to make people upset with you . . .
I get it. You take the Scripture as the only reliable thing in the world, and then you attack it logically and analytically, and then after all this work you arrive at a conclusion about it as a whole. The Trinity doesn't enter into your imaginations, because the Trinity is not what is emphasized, whereas there are a lot of other topics and subjects that are heavily emphasized. You figure, if the Scripture itself didn't see fit to heavily emphasize the Trinity, then why should you believe it?

The unambiguous evidence of history however, together with the Scritpure, is completely consistent with the Trinity, and it is completely inconsistent with Nontrinitarian thought.

Nontrinitarianism is a tradition of men, and the Trinity is the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
It's possible. Witness all the people like you who've not come to that conclusion.

Begging the question.

Serious question: Is it not like this for you? Are you, being Nontrinitarian, have difficulty seeing any other interpretation? Or is it easy for you to see the Trinity?

I get it. You take the Scripture as the only reliable thing in the world, and then you attack it logically and analytically, and then after all this work you arrive at a conclusion about it as a whole. The Trinity doesn't enter into your imaginations, because the Trinity is not what is emphasized, whereas there are a lot of other topics and subjects that are heavily emphasized. You figure, if the Scripture itself didn't see fit to heavily emphasize the Trinity, then why should you believe it?

The unambiguous evidence of history however, together with the Scritpure, is completely consistent with the Trinity, and it is completely inconsistent with Nontrinitarian thought.

Nontrinitarianism is a tradition of men, and the Trinity is the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
It's possible. Witness all the people like you who've not come to that conclusion.

Begging the question.

Serious question: Is it not like this for you? Are you, being Nontrinitarian, have difficulty seeing any other interpretation? Or is it easy for you to see the Trinity?

I get it. You take the Scripture as the only reliable thing in the world, and then you attack it logically and analytically, and then after all this work you arrive at a conclusion about it as a whole. The Trinity doesn't enter into your imaginations, because the Trinity is not what is emphasized, whereas there are a lot of other topics and subjects that are heavily emphasized. You figure, if the Scripture itself didn't see fit to heavily emphasize the Trinity, then why should you believe it?

The unambiguous evidence of history however, together with the Scritpure, is completely consistent with the Trinity, and it is completely inconsistent with Nontrinitarian thought.

Nontrinitarianism is a tradition of men, and the Trinity is the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
Nontrinitarianism is a tradition of men, and the Trinity is the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles . That’s a false dichotomy as no faithful witness in the Old Testament or New used that anachronistic post biblical prerequisite as a reference as it wasn’t invented till later . Old Testament Hebrews 3:1-6, 11:4 , Revelation 1:1,5,6.
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
Jesus Christ is my foundation as a faithful witness as other faithful witnesses are of the OT and NT .

“For we are God’s coworkers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to God’s grace that was given to me, I have laid a foundation as a skilled master builder, and another builds on it. But each one is to be careful how he builds on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than what has been laid down. That foundation is Jesus Christ.

and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:9-11, 23‬ ‭CSB‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/1713/1co.3.9-11,23.csb
“Considerable in every way. First, they were entrusted with the very words of God. What then? If some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Absolutely not! Let God be true, even though everyone is a liar, as it is written: That you may be justified in your words and triumph when you judge.

For we conclude that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:2-4, 28-31‬ ‭CSB‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/1713/rom.3.2-4,28-31.csb
 

f.y.i

BANNED
Banned
It's possible. Witness all the people like you who've not come to that conclusion.

Begging the question.

Serious question: Is it not like this for you? Are you, being Nontrinitarian, have difficulty seeing any other interpretation? Or is it easy for you to see the Trinity?

I get it. You take the Scripture as the only reliable thing in the world, and then you attack it logically and analytically, and then after all this work you arrive at a conclusion about it as a whole. The Trinity doesn't enter into your imaginations, because the Trinity is not what is emphasized, whereas there are a lot of other topics and subjects that are heavily emphasized. You figure, if the Scripture itself didn't see fit to heavily emphasize the Trinity, then why should you believe it?

The unambiguous evidence of history however, together with the Scritpure, is completely consistent with the Trinity, and it is completely inconsistent with Nontrinitarian thought.

Nontrinitarianism is a tradition of men, and the Trinity is the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
Regarding your unambiguous evidence under the light of Jesus Christ words .
““Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:13-14, 24-29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/114/mat.7.13-14,24-29.nkjv
 

OZOS

Well-known member
Name calling by Jesus Christ ?
“Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking,

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:1, 21-23‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

https://www.bible.com/bible/114/1pe.2.1,21-23.nkjv
You've never actually read the Bible, have you?
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
It's possible. Witness all the people like you who've not come to that conclusion.

Begging the question.

Serious question: Is it not like this for you? Are you, being Nontrinitarian, have difficulty seeing any other interpretation? Or is it easy for you to see the Trinity?

I get it. You take the Scripture as the only reliable thing in the world, and then you attack it logically and analytically, and then after all this work you arrive at a conclusion about it as a whole. The Trinity doesn't enter into your imaginations, because the Trinity is not what is emphasized, whereas there are a lot of other topics and subjects that are heavily emphasized. You figure, if the Scripture itself didn't see fit to heavily emphasize the Trinity, then why should you believe it?

The unambiguous evidence of history however, together with the Scritpure, is completely consistent with the Trinity, and it is completely inconsistent with Nontrinitarian thought.

Nontrinitarianism is a tradition of men, and the Trinity is the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
Ugh . . .

Did you not bother to read? I get the feeling you could if you wanted to but I feel like you have a lot of hate toward me right now.

If you read the thread from the beginning, you would see that many people had problems understanding what f.y.i. said. I'm assuming f.y.i. is either very young or has limited communication abilities. So, out of friendliness to a new member, I tried my best to summarize his position and give some advice.
 
Top