Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Dartman]

Well, let's work on it one point at a time ...
John 10:30 does not include the word "being", correct?

I don't think it does ...

Good, we agree on that point.

It doesn't mean that they're one company or one institution or one country or one corporation, does it? He meant that they are One and the Same

Hold on ..... "..and the same" is NOT in the text either. You have taken a simple statement, and tried to BEND it by adding a phrase biased toward your current understanding.

I take it to mean: Being. If you take it another way, I can understand that ...

I think Jesus is the best interpreter of Jesus, don't you?
John 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jesus himself, explains that the believers are one EVEN AS Jesus and his God are one!

On the other hand, there isn't a single text that states, explains or preaches that "Jesus and God are one being".... or any synonymous phrases to that.

 

[Dartman]

Typical redirection instead of addressing the plain and clear meaning of that scripture.

You're confused which meaning is "plain and clear"..... as usual.

 

[Right Divider]

You're confused which meaning is "plain and clear"..... as usual.

Again you blather on and on without reference to the passage in question.

 

[Dartman]

Again you blather on and on without reference to the passage in question.

Again you blather on and on without reference to the passage in question.

 

[Right Divider]

Again you blather on and on without reference to the passage in question.

I posted a passage of scripture where:

• Peter says that someone lied to the Holy Ghost.
• There is no such thing as lying to an "attribute" of anything. Lying is person to person.
• Peter also calls the Holy Ghost God.
• Therefore, the Holy Ghost is a person that is God.

If you'd like to actually discuss, please do. Otherwise, get lost.

 

[john w]

I posted a passage of scripture where:

• Peter says that someone lied to the Holy Ghost.
• There is no such thing as lying to an "attribute" of anything. Lying is person to person.
• Peter also calls the Holy Ghost God.
• Therefore, the Holy Ghost is a person that is God.

If you'd like to actually discuss, please do. Otherwise, get lost.

1 Corinthians 12 KJV
11 but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Scoffers: It really does not mean that, you see, uh, urr....

 

[musterion]

Three distinct Persons, all referred to as God, yet there is only one God.

The Bible doesn't even try to explain to us HOW this is possible. It only states that it is true. But these scoffers refuse to accept it, mainly because they don't have a mental box big enough to cram God into. And if He won't fit, they'll redefine Him to suit themselves...and end up with an idol.

 

[7djengo7]

In his post #125, Right Divider wrote:

A person lies to a another person and not to "an attribute of God".

Your reaction to that was to write:

You know better than this nonsense.

Right Divider didn't write nonsense; he meant something in what he wrote. He affirmed a proposition. No proposition is nonsense; every proposition is meaningful. Every proposition is either true or false, and whatever is either true or false is not nonsense. Now, here's the proposition Right Divider is affirming:

[Every instance of lying] is [an instance of a person lying to a person].
​

Only an abject fool--someone devoted to irrationality--will be willing to say that that proposition is FALSE. Obviously, you are aware of this, and, thus, you understand the embarrassment in which you'd necessarily involve yourself by claiming that Right Divider's proposition is FALSE. And yet, you, obviously, must needs hate to admit, publicly, that Right Divider's proposition is TRUE. So, you thought you would somehow help yourself by saying that Right Divider's proposition is NONSENSE. But, that ploy's just now been exploded, and it didn't help you. So, make yourself clear. Here, again, is the proposition:

Every instance of lying is an instance of a person lying to a person.​

What do you say of it? Is it TRUE or is it FALSE? It is one or the other, so which do you say it is?

Here's a fun syllogism for you to react to:

Major Premise: Every instance of lying is an instance of a person lying to a person,

Minor Premise: Ananias' lying to the Holy Ghost is an instance of lying,

ERGO,
Conclusion: Ananias' lying to the Holy Ghost is an instance of a person lying to a person.​

So long as both the Major Premise and the Minor Premise of this syllogism are true, the Conclusion MUST be true. As an heretic, you deny the Conclusion, obviously, so which Premise do you deny (if not both of them)?

 

[musterion]

In his post #125, Right Divider wrote:



Your reaction to that was to write:



Right Divider didn't write nonsense; he meant something in what he wrote. He affirmed a proposition. No proposition is nonsense; every proposition is meaningful. Every proposition is either true or false, and whatever is either true or false is not nonsense. Now, here's the proposition Right Divider is affirming:

[Every instance of lying] is [an instance of a person lying to a person].
​

Only an abject fool--someone devoted to irrationality--will be willing to say that that proposition is FALSE. Obviously, you are aware of this, and, thus, you understand the embarrassment in which you'd necessarily involve yourself by claiming that Right Divider's proposition is FALSE. And yet, you, obviously, must needs hate to admit, publicly, that Right Divider's proposition is TRUE. So, you thought you would somehow help yourself by saying that Right Divider's proposition is NONSENSE. But, that ploy's just now been exploded, and it didn't help you. So, make yourself clear. Here, again, is the proposition:

Every instance of lying is an instance of a person lying to a person.​

What do you say of it? Is it TRUE or is it FALSE? It is one or the other, so which do you say it is?

Here's a fun syllogism for you to react to:

Major Premise: Every instance of lying is an instance of a person lying to a person,

Minor Premise: Ananias' lying to the Holy Ghost is an instance of lying,

ERGO,
Conclusion: Ananias' lying to the Holy Ghost is an instance of a person lying to a person.​

So long as both the Major Premise and the Minor Premise of this syllogism are true, the Conclusion MUST be true. As a heretic, you deny the Conclusion, obviously, so which Premise do you deny?

Not bad!

 

[Idolater]

If you do feel they should still be used, why?

The Nicene Creed professes that the Lord Jesus Christ is "true God of true God," or, "true God from true God."

The Nicene Creed is Apostolic. It means that Apostles literally taught bishops what this Creed contains.

So you're incorrect, in being non-Trinitarian. You're denying the Apostles their teaching authority, which is the teaching authority of Christ Jesus, Who gave it to them.

 

[musterion]

The Nicene Creed professes that the Lord Jesus Christ is "true God of true God," or, "true God from true God."

The Nicene Creed is Apostolic. It means that Apostles literally taught bishops what this Creed contains.

It isn't needed.

 

[Idolater]

It isn't needed.

If we can agree that it's Apostolic, this thread is DOA, along with all non-Trinitarianism. So maybe it's not needed, but it'd be nice if it were recognized as Apostolic. It just shoots these speculations dead.

 

[musterion]

If we can agree that it's Apostolic, this thread is DOA, along with all non-Trinitarianism. So maybe it's not needed, but it'd be nice if it were recognized as Apostolic. It just shoots these speculations dead.

Nope. The Bible alone is sufficient to the task. Opening the door to various creeds of questionable veracity and dubious utility is a tough door to close when one of the non-apostolic figures is correct on one point but biblically wrong on something else. You could end up with an abominable church like...like...

*spots "Nihilo" in sig*

Nevermind.

 

[Dartman]

I posted a passage of scripture where:

• Peter says that someone lied to the Holy Ghost.
• There is no such thing as lying to an "attribute" of anything. Lying is person to person.
• Peter also calls the Holy Ghost God.
• Therefore, the Holy Ghost is a person that is God.

...

I know you did. And, I corrected your error as follows;

You know better than this nonsense.
If I trick your mind, I have tricked you. If I deceive your mind, I have deceived you.
If I convert your mind, and correct your thinking, I have converted/corrected you.
Your defense fails.

What do people mean when they accuse someone of "lying to my face"?

 

[Idolater]

Nope. The Bible alone is sufficient to the task.

Manifestly false. If it were true, then there wouldn't be any non-Trinitarians now, nor would there ever have been any. Because we all have the Bible.

 

[musterion]

Q. Does the Bible say there is only one God?

A. Yes, only God Himself. He flatly says there are none beside Him. That means there is one AND ONLY ONE God.

Q. How many Persons in the Bible are referred to as God...not qualified as faces of God, aspects of God, personalities of God, manifestations of God, but said to be God?

A. Three.

Yet there is only one God, and God is One.

How can a God who is Three be a God who is One?

The Bible doesn't explain it, but it does say it. You'll either believe it or you won't, but it does say it. If you don't believe it, and if you're honest, you'll have to reject the Bible as untrustworthy and self-contradictory because you can't make the Bible not say what it says.

 

[musterion]

Manifestly false. If it were true, then there wouldn't be any non-Trinitarians now, nor would there ever have been any. Because we all have the Bible.

Bad logic. People believe all manner of false gospels that won't save them yet they have Bibles to read, wherein we find stated very clearly that there is today one and only one saving Gospel. See my signature with regard to that.

What you're saying (good Catholic that you are) is that faith in any given Bible doctrine is not possible without some man-made creed telling you what to believe, because the Bible alone is not sufficient to learn and believe, say, the doctrine we call the Trinity. But you're wrong.

 

[way 2 go]

I don't think it does, do you? It doesn't mean that they're one company or one institution or one country or one corporation, does it? He meant that they are One and the Same; I take it to mean: Being. If you take it another way, I can understand that, since you're obviously ignoring the over-running theme of the New Testament.

the Jews understood what Jesus said ,which is why they picked up stones.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Is it just me or do non-Trinitarians just ignore much of the New Testament?:idunno:

ignore or are they blind or both ?
:idunno:

 

[musterion]

When Thomas called Him "God," Christ did not rebuke him for blasphemy. John 20:28-29

 

[Idolater]

Bad logic.

Yours was the bad logic. You're the one who said, "The Bible alone is sufficient to the task." Non-Trinitarians use the Bible to argue against the Trinity. What you've said is false on its face.

People believe all manner of false gospels that won't save them yet they have Bibles to read, wherein we find stated very clearly that there is today one and only one saving Gospel. See my signature with regard to that.

That's just more proof that "The Bible alone is sufficient to the task" is false.

What you're saying (good Catholic that you are)

I'm not Catholic.

is that faith in any given Bible doctrine is not possible without some man-made creed telling you what to believe, because the Bible alone is not sufficient to learn and believe, say, the doctrine we call the Trinity.

That's just the obvious fact. If "The Bible alone is sufficient to the task," then there'd be one Christian tradition wrt the expression of the one Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV), including "the doctrine we call the Trinity."