Impossible Questions For Trinitarians

[Solo]

Solo,

You throw out these scripture as if they have 'more' meaning directed at those that 'deny' 'trinity', than realizing that it is the 'group' that has created and perpetuated this 'trinity' that would do well to heed these scripture. I believe that I could offer the 'same' scripture to show what 'had' to be done to 'create' this 'trinity'. for neither Christ NOR His apostles EVER taught a 'trinity'. So WHO is it that REALLY refuses to follow the Gospel preached by the apostles and offered BY Christ HIMSELF? Surely you won't offer that 'I' have 'created' ANYTHING. I simply have accepted what has been stated and what has been 'revealed' to me. I have 'CREATED' nothing. I follow the Word and NO ONE else. The 'truth' is that it is the churches that teach, and those that 'follow', that have altered the gospel to 'suit their own ideas' of the Godhead.

The 'firstborn' of every 'creature' obviously means NOTHING to those that 'accept trinity'. The Son of God obviously means little either. Or the FACT that God is referred to AS THE FATHER. Now guys, look what a deceptive god you follow: for you believe that Christ IS God, but there is NOT ONE mention of 'God the Son' in the entire NT. You 'CLAIM' that 'this IS' the gospel, but can show NOT ONE PLACE where it is stated that Christ IS God.

On the other hand, you accuse me and others of being 'unsaved' or 'not knowing God' or 'lost' but here is what we follow: Christ IS the Son of God, (stated over and over again in the Word). We believe that God is the ONLY God and the Father of Jesus Christ, (stated over and over again in the Word). I believe that Christ was begotten, (created), as the Word states also. i believe that RIGHT now, Christ sits at the Right Hand of God, (again, as the Bible states).

Funny, but I have just stated that I BELIEVE in the gospel of Jesus Christ. What's even funnier, you would DENY this AS THE Gospel.

Now, let's look at what 'trins' believe. Jesus IS God. NEVER STATED in the Bible. Jesus was NOT created, totally contradictory to the words Father and Son to start with. For there to be a Son, there MUST be a Father to create him. Otherwise, your belief requires us to abandon our dictionary and understanding of 'words' in order to 're-define' what both; a Father and what a Son ARE.

You follow a 'pagan' tradition' created by one of the most 'hateful' religions known in human history. It literally took centuries to embed this doctrine into the minds and hearts of those that they literally had to torture and murder to FORCE the acceptance of. They stopped at NOTHING in order to 'stifle' the 'truth'. And to this day, this religion STILL believes that their Pope is AS powerful AS Christ. Worshipping graven images and even worshiping a WOMAN as the 'queen of heaven'. Wow, and these are THOSE that 'created' this 'trinity' that you 'choose' to follow.

It would do you well to heed the advice that I've already given on numerous occasion: Beware of 'who' and 'how' you decide to judge your 'brothers' and 'sister's IN Christ. For HOW you judge WILL be EXACTLY 'how' YOU will be judged.

You, my friend are accursed, for teaching another gospel other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ created all things in heaven and earth, and is not a created being, but is God almighty, creator God. You have fallen deep into the doctrines of devils, and you refuse to accept the truth. Bye.

 

[Solo]

My friend Solo,

Let me illustrate the point you appear to be either incapable of understanding or are simply unwilling to.

It may be my personal belief that many of the doctrines espoused by mainstream Christianity are heresy. That they may are false teachings, not found in the written word, not taught by Christ and are thus not part of the gospel of God - some may call them works of the Adversary.

Those who believe them, teach them and live by them are deceived, blind, living in darkness, have been turned over to a reprobate mind and will require the wrath of God to wake up.

But I realize and accept that this may be precisely how you and others view my beliefs. It goes both ways. It is understood that many people who claim adherence to the written word of God have opposing beliefs - it has always been this way in the world.

Just because you claim allegence to a system that currently is more in number, and has historically been victorious over those in the minority, by no means translates to automatically possessing the truth.

The authority I appeal to for my faith is the one true God. You appeal to a God consisting of three persons who allegedly are one being. Which one can be clearly identified in the Bible - both OT and NT?

If it comes down to the number of verses either of us can muster in support of their respective theism, then you are clearly and decisively out-numbered and therefore must concede.

So please refrain from the high-and-mighty approach where the claim is "you're wrong 'cause I say so and therefore you're a heretic."

As servants of Christ and Almighty God, we are admonished to,

"Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

And must remember that,

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).

If disagree we must then so let it be but let's don't accuse and condemn one another, for it is written,

“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matt. 7:1-2).

We are not to judge one another or Lord it over another for,

"There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?" (James 4:12)

And,

Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand (Romans 14:4).

Let's appeal to the written word of God as the final authority.

At least that way we may talk to one another, get to know one another, and perhaps in time, learn to love one another as we are called to do and thereby learn to fulfill the law of God - as it is written.

What are your thoughts?

R7-12

You, my friend are accursed, for teaching another gospel other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ created all things in heaven and earth, and is not a created being, but is God almighty, creator God. You have fallen deep into the doctrines of devils, and you refuse to accept the truth.

You are also spreading teachings that are contrary to the statement of faith of this forum. You would be better disposed to leave this forum and go to a forum that agrees to your beliefs, and not attack the teachings of the Word of God at this forum. Bye.

 

[R7-12]

Well, goodbye Solo.

Understand that I have not violated the rules of this forum, but rather, have upheld the principles of Christianity. There are many that have spoken evil on this forum - in my opinion, and some continue to do so. I have not.

It is not a nice ploy to try to get me banned for speaking the truth.

I'm not sure where you are going but hopefully, someday, we will be able to communicate in a way that is both edifying and productive for us and glorifying to our heavenly Father in the name of the Christ.

Until then, may our heavenly Father bless you,
R7-12

 

[BenJasher]

Just what on earth is a subordinationist Unitarian? I think I heard of one of those once. I think they have a vaccine for that, don't they? (Bad joke, I know. Lord, I apologize. I pray for all the starving pygmies in Afghanistan.)

I think if someone were to scratch the surface of a subordinationist Unitarian, they would find a Christian Scientist, with an extra layer of Christian veneer.

Just like cheap furniture. Sawdust and glue with a layer of oak-grained wallpaper to make it look good. Trying to understand with the human mind what was never relegated to the realm of human reasoning.

 

[R7-12]

Just what on earth is a subordinationist Unitarian? I think I heard of one of those once. I think they have a vaccine for that, don't they?

Yes, but burning them at the stake has been temporarily banned.

I think if someone were to scratch the surface of a subordinationist Unitarian, they would find a Christian Scientist, with an extra layer of Christian veneer.

No, you would find someone dedicated to serving Almighty God through His Spirit in Christ’s name, with an extra layer of skin and the full armor of God.

Just like cheap furniture. Sawdust and glue with a layer of oak-grained wallpaper to make it look good. Trying to understand with the human mind what was never relegated to the realm of human reasoning.

Your self-characterization seems excessively harsh, but do you really think you should abandon trying to understand with the brain God gave you? Full cranial lobotomies leave nothing but hot air.

Your approach and demeanor seem familiar to me, are you the heckler found in every crowd?

By the way, it’s nice to meet you as well.

R7-12

 

[BenJasher]

I wasn't meaning to be harsh, even though what I said could be taken to be demeaning. I am not a heckler. But I don't mind saying what is on my mind. There is no danger of not knowing where you stand with me, if that is any comfort to you. I am not the one that is in every crowd. I make very few appearances on this board anymore. There is so little of any real substance to talk about to anyone on here. It used to not be that way on here.

If I hadn't been so completely absorbed with my case load lately, I would be harping loudly on the fact that the Rapture Theory can be shown to be a complete falsehood. I don't have time for any more than a quick foray once in a while right now.

As far as my question; "what is a subordationist Unitarian?", I think you answered it. But why the long title? I am a Universalist. Not to be confused with a Unitarian Universalist. But, so what?

Neither am I in favor of being a brainless hot-head. And there are far too many of them in organized Christianity if you ask me. Benny Hinn is a good example. If he was Scottish, I would say he was an overstuffed Haggis. But then again, who am I to make that judgement?

It is fitting and proper to search things out and seek answers. "It is the nature of the Most High to conceal a matter, but it is to the glory of Kings to search them out." But at the same time we are to balance that with "lean not unto your own understanding." In all our ways we are to acknowledge Him. You know the rest. But how do we acknowledge Him if we take away His Divinity? If we make Him no greater than ourselves, only "chosen for a better job" do we not rob Him of the majesty that is His? If we make Him to be some "sepaprate creation" that was brought into being solely to redeem creation, do we not lessen who He was somehow?

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Colossians calls Him, in another translation of the Greek texts, "The Creative Original," meaning He was the blue-print, mind you, God used to create everything that exists. To weave what John said into what Paul says in Colossians; there is not anything that was made that was not made without using the "Creative Original" blue-print. To take this into another light, everything that exists, whatever it is, on whatever level of creation it exists on, is an expression of the glory of God the Father, and is a reflection of the glory of God the Son.

You are obviously a person of gifted intellect. You are doing rightly to use the gift God has given you to seek answers to the questions. But just keep in mind that there are mysteries in the scripture that cannot be apprehended by the carnal mind. The one is at war with the other. The answer to these things can only come from revelation.

There is a long list of people who have tried to comprehend the things of the spirit with the carnal mind. These people have produced for us the 2000+/- different flavors of the Christian religion. They all can prove that they have the right answer. But inspite of that they all, for the most part, have completely missed the boat. They are treading water, in danger of drowning, all the while thinking they are firmly standing on the deck of a ship bound for Glory Land. If they aren't careful Davy Jones will provide sleeping quarters for them in his locker. Don't let your gifted intellect make you just another drowning victim. Fair enough?

And please, don't take my admonition to be demeaning or belittling.

 

[jgredline]

Same old tactic.

If you can't prove them wrong, or even answer their questions, - label them a cult!

I call it the way I see it

[quote:117d6]You have no idea who is behind the slander. Instead of making sure of what you are linking to, you essentially support and spread someone else's lies and thereby commit the transgression yourself, spreading rumour and gossip.

There are so many watch groups that have this sect in thier cult data base that it is not even funny. Its sad. Trully a wolf in sheeps clothing. Come to find out that most unitarians also beleive that all roads lead to heaven. Another false doctrine.

What does the Bible say about this kind of conduct?

2 peter 2:1-3 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

It could be said that everyone is in a cult - except perhaps those who have the power and money to justify persecuting someone after labelling them a cult, then they will appear victorious and claim victory over "the heretics." Sound familiar? The words cult, heretic or heresy are often used to suite the intentions of the accusers. Jesus Christ would no doubt be labeled a cult leader by today's standards and his teaching would be considered heresy.

Perhaps the CREATED Jesus that you preach.

Your post is proof of that. "A known cult." What kind of insinuating and manipulating propaganda is that?

Why not lets just deal with the concepts and texts and premises in an honest and respectful manner?

Or are you trying to achieve something else by your attacks?

I am not insinuating anything. I am calling it the way it is false teaching and its an abomination to the Lord Jesus Christ. What I am trying to achieve in what you precieve to be attacks is to try and prevent more people into falling into your false doctrine.

R7-12[/quote:117d6]

R7
Your guilt trips are not going to work on me.
Your questions have been answered by many people on this forum. You choose not to hear the truth. Your interpretation of John 1:1 is wrong.

 

[R7-12]

jgredline wrote,

I call it the way I see it

Me too. That makes us even.

There are so many watch groups that have this sect in thier cult data base that it is not even funny. Its sad. Trully a wolf in sheeps clothing. Come to find out that most unitarians also beleive that all roads lead to heaven. Another false doctrine.

I believe you’re referring to Universalist Unitarians such as Benjasher who recently posted on this forum. It is a form of Process Theology which is what mainstream Christianity is slowly converting to from ecumenical influence. BTW, the Bible doesn’t promise heaven to anyone. We shall become spiritborn elohim who will comprise the City of God, New Jerusalem, the House of David, the Bride of Christ, as it is written.

I’m not a Universalist nor have I ever claimed to be. I believe in one true God who is the Father, who sent His son Jesus Christ, as it is written in John 17:3. All whom God calls and leads to repentance by His goodness and is chosen will be saved (Romans 2:4).

Looks like you have misidentified and slandered and spread untruths that were not carefully scrutinized beforehand. Perhaps you would do well to get your facts straight before passing judgment on one of God’s creation.

Here is the scripture you offered returned to you,

2 Peter 2:1-3 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

I am not insinuating anything. I am calling it the way it is false teaching and its an abomination to the Lord Jesus Christ. What I am trying to achieve in what you precieve to be attacks is to try and prevent more people into falling into your false doctrine.

That is precisely what I am also trying to achieve.

R7
Your guilt trips are not going to work on me.

Why is it the Scriptures posted are causing you to feel guilt?

Your questions have been answered by many people on this forum. You choose not to hear the truth.

No. They have not been answered. I have been waiting. I am right here. The answers have not been given.

Your interpretation of John 1:1 is wrong.

It’s not my interpretation but your comment is still quite a declaration – prove it.

Have a good evening,
R7-12

 

[R7-12]

BenJasher,

You said,

And please, don't take my admonition to be demeaning or belittling.

I would hope that any comments you make to someone would not be demeaning or belittling, especially when you have never spoken to them before. Unfortunately, one of your comments implied I was diseased. Another comment misrepresented what I have openly declared to believe, and in a third comment you likened me to cheap furniture comprised of sawdust, glue, with a bit of wallpaper on the outside to look good, and trying to reason with a human mind. Do you consider this admonition? It’s more like character assassination. I certainly didn’t feel uplifted by your words. Was I supposed to?

Make no mistake, I have not taken offense, I am only mirroring what you said so that you would have a chance to see yourself for a moment from another person’s shoes.

Perhaps you will wish to change your approach when trying to admonish someone you have never spoken to before. It certainly wasn’t an effective approach with me and I doubt it would be for anyone – regardless of your opinion about their beliefs.

You are not the first to say,

There is a long list of people who have tried to comprehend the things of the spirit with the carnal mind.

The problem is those who do this very thing are those who accuse others of not having the spirit. They simply don’t know and can’t understand how to discern those who have the spirit and those who do not. The Bible is very, very clear regarding the determination of those who have the light of God in them and those who don’t, but alas, this truth is also rejected by many.

R7-12

 

[Klee shay]

Amazingly Solo, I understood every word R7-12 wrote without having to resort to the "mystic" understanding of the English language - where it says one thing but really means another.

I appeal to the simple learning when Jesus spoke the truth of Father and Son. It was not a charade played out by God where we would have to guess who Jesus really was at a later date. When Jesus himself uttered the words Father, it was not an "illusion" by which mankind would be saved. It was the simple truth. Otherwise it was a farce.

If it is impossible to understand Jesus being a creation of his father, then by what adoption are the Son's of Adam taken into the fold? For if by one man we are condemned and another saved; the price of the ransom has to be equal. It was not simply flesh for flesh offered on the cross, but a heart FOR God. One man's heart turned away from God's will and another man's heart turned towards God's will.

If Jesus was not merely a man but God himself, then the correct ransom was not paid. For then God forgave mankind not because another son recognised and obeyed his will - turning God's wrath away from the other - but because God merely obeyed his own will.

Doesn't sound like the almightly authority God is renoun for all throughout history, does it?

"Not by my will but thy will be done."

Can you tell me what Jesus is saying here? Does he mean what he's really saying? Either he is God, denying God's will - which makes him look like a confused deity. Or indeed the word "my" is in reference to his individuality to God; giving the "thy" it's proper meaning. Very simple terminology here and I don't think you or I could disagree on what Jesus is actually saying. So where do you get the idea that Jesus is God? Surely not from this scripture?

If not from this scripture, then what scripture? Jesus said "my" and "thy", could it possibly have any other meaning other scriptures could change? Take the traditionally pro-trinitarian scripture where Jesus also declared, "I and my Father are one." Does this change the reference to "my" and "thy" in the previous scripture; making it a prayer debased of it's true meaning?

I find it hypocritical Solo that you could encourage R7 to leave for supposedly attacking the Word of God, and yet here in this one simple sentence Jesus uttered in the Garden you can make "my" and "thy" to nil effect, with the teachings you offer. If you can explain what Jesus actually meant by using the words "my" and "thy" while maintaining the integrity of the trinity doctrine - then I will seriously have to consider your curses upon R7's teachings valid.

But until then, I'll keep using the logical approach to simple terminology rather than pushing the "trinity is salvation" banner. Words speak for themselves and they're fairly easy to understand. I thought R7 had a consistent approach towards presenting the terminologies as they were written. I can understand that. What I don't understand is the message that Jesus is God merely because words which speak for themselves normally; can be translated into an idea devoid of their true meaning.

"Not by my will but thy will be done". How can you change the meaning of that? Do we have the right to alter the words of Jesus and still call ourselves his followers?

 

[Solo]

Well, goodbye Solo.

Understand that I have not violated the rules of this forum, but rather, have upheld the principles of Christianity. There are many that have spoken evil on this forum - in my opinion, and some continue to do so. I have not.

It is not a nice ploy to try to get me banned for speaking the truth.

I'm not sure where you are going but hopefully, someday, we will be able to communicate in a way that is both edifying and productive for us and glorifying to our heavenly Father in the name of the Christ.

Until then, may our heavenly Father bless you,
R7-12

You are breaking Rule 1 of the Terms of Service:

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith

The first line in this forum's Statement of Faith is:

This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Any attempt at lowing this "basic tenet of our Faith" as truth is considered a hostile act.

You have are also breaking Rule 3 of the Terms of Service:

3 - No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed.

Your faith of subordinationist Unitarian is a promotion of another Faith other than the Faith defined in the Statement of Faith of this board.

You will be banned for speaking heresy and breaking the Rules of this forum, not for speaking the truth.

You and your cultic group "Christian Churches of God" are against Mainline Christianity as your documentation reveals.

 

[Solo]

Amazingly Solo, I understood every word R7-12 wrote without having to resort to the "mystic" understanding of the English language - where it says one thing but really means another.

I appeal to the simple learning when Jesus spoke the truth of Father and Son. It was not a charade played out by God where we would have to guess who Jesus really was at a later date. When Jesus himself uttered the words Father, it was not an "illusion" by which mankind would be saved. It was the simple truth. Otherwise it was a farce.

If it is impossible to understand Jesus being a creation of his father, then by what adoption are the Son's of Adam taken into the fold? For if by one man we are condemned and another saved; the price of the ransom has to be equal. It was not simply flesh for flesh offered on the cross, but a heart FOR God. One man's heart turned away from God's will and another man's heart turned towards God's will.

If Jesus was not merely a man but God himself, then the correct ransom was not paid. For then God forgave mankind not because another son recognised and obeyed his will - turning God's wrath away from the other - but because God merely obeyed his own will.

Doesn't sound like the almightly authority God is renoun for all throughout history, does it?

"Not by my will but thy will be done."

Can you tell me what Jesus is saying here? Does he mean what he's really saying? Either he is God, denying God's will - which makes him look like a confused deity. Or indeed the word "my" is in reference to his individuality to God; giving the "thy" it's proper meaning. Very simple terminology here and I don't think you or I could disagree on what Jesus is actually saying. So where do you get the idea that Jesus is God? Surely not from this scripture?

If not from this scripture, then what scripture? Jesus said "my" and "thy", could it possibly have any other meaning other scriptures could change? Take the traditionally pro-trinitarian scripture where Jesus also declared, "I and my Father are one." Does this change the reference to "my" and "thy" in the previous scripture; making it a prayer debased of it's true meaning?

I find it hypocritical Solo that you could encourage R7 to leave for supposedly attacking the Word of God, and yet here in this one simple sentence Jesus uttered in the Garden you can make "my" and "thy" to nil effect, with the teachings you offer. If you can explain what Jesus actually meant by using the words "my" and "thy" while maintaining the integrity of the trinity doctrine - then I will seriously have to consider your curses upon R7's teachings valid.

But until then, I'll keep using the logical approach to simple terminology rather than pushing the "trinity is salvation" banner. Words speak for themselves and they're fairly easy to understand. I thought R7 had a consistent approach towards presenting the terminologies as they were written. I can understand that. What I don't understand is the message that Jesus is God merely because words which speak for themselves normally; can be translated into an idea devoid of their true meaning.

"Not by my will but thy will be done". How can you change the meaning of that? Do we have the right to alter the words of Jesus and still call ourselves his followers?

Jesus is not an angel, and Jesus was not created. Jesus created all things in heaven and earth including ALL angels. To understand the three persons of the Godhead is not difficult, but it does take the same faith that it takes to know God. The Jews had Jesus killed because they understood that he was proclaiming to be God, but they did not believe, just as you and the non-trinitarians on this board. I know many, many who did not believe that Jesus is God until after they were born of God. As soon as they were born again, the fact that Jesus is God became resident in their being; including mine.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, Immanuel; God with us; Almighty God, the First and the Last, the Everlasting Father, etc.

Explain to me how you could not understand the simplicity of this verse claiming that Jesus is the Everlasting Father:

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. Isaiah 9:6

Until one is born of God, one cannot know or understand God.

 

[R7-12]

Solo,

I have not spoken a single lie.

I am a Christian and have never put it down, but rather, have defended it.

I am not attempting to “lower†anything. What has been shown to be true from Scripture has not been refuted. I am examining the Scriptures as everyone else and speaking accordingly. Neither am I promoting any other gospel than the truth of Scripture and your accusation has not been supported by any proof.

I have not attacked or offended. I have merely spoken according to Scripture which everyone else appears to have the same right to do.

I know you are frustrated and angry and wish to have victory over the light by bringing darkness upon the written word. You may succeed physically but spiritually the truth will always prevail. This is where patience or longsuffering is truly needed and why it is one of the fruits of the Spirit, along with love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law (Galatians. 5:22-23).

I have appealed to your better judgment but you continue your campaign of what can only be viewed as hatred.

Jesus Christ is our example and we would do well if we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).

Was Christ always genuine? Did he always speak the truth? How did he great Judas Iscariot the moment he was betrayed by him? Matthew 26:50.

Can we not learn from history and chose to treat our fellowman in ways that promote the principles of the Bible instead of the principles of the Inquisition? Hatred harbors the spirit of murder. What will happen when those who have significant theological aspirations gain a political foothold or other means of power?

Truly the day is at hand and soon the man of lawlessness will be revealed when many will hear ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23) and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I’m sorry we have as yet been unable to hold an edifying dialogue together - friend. :fadein:

May our heavenly Father bless you and keep you,
R7-12

 

[BenJasher]

I believe you’re referring to Universalist Unitarians such as Benjasher

I very plainly said I was not a Unitarian Universalist. But I am a Christian Universalist.

I would hope that any comments you make to someone would not be demeaning or belittling, especially when you have never spoken to them before. Unfortunately, one of your comments implied I was diseased.

Now, I am confused. Which statement was that?

Another comment misrepresented what I have openly declared to believe,

Again, where did I do that? Are you sure that I am the one who has castigated you?

and in a third comment you likened me to cheap furniture comprised of sawdust, glue, with a bit of wallpaper on the outside to look good, and trying to reason with a human mind. Do you consider this admonition? It’s more like character assassination. I certainly didn’t feel uplifted by your words. Was I supposed to?

Take it anyway that you are comfortable with, my friend. Like I said to you the second time, there is no danger of mistaking where you stand with me. I will flatly tell you what I think. It isn't meant to be anything other than a clear delineation of what I think.

You are not the first to say,

There is a long list of people who have tried to comprehend the things of the spirit with the carnal mind.

The problem is those who do this very thing are those who accuse others of not having the spirit. They simply don’t know and can’t understand how to discern those who have the spirit and those who do not. The Bible is very, very clear regarding the determination of those who have the light of God in them and those who don’t, but alas, this truth is also rejected by many.
R7-12

Well, Geee-whizzzz... I guess you have left me with no viable rebuttal to your generalizations of that which you have yet to comprehend. I therefore humbly acquiesce. Thank you for taking the time to rub my nose in my own misunderstanding(s). I would like to do this again sometime. It has been a royal hoot.

 

[jgredline]

R7-12
Here is what I do know about you.

Going by your prevoiuse post you belong or are affilated with the Cultec sect
http://www.logon.org/

You believe / claim / say that Jesus was a created being. JW, Mormons, beleive the same thing.

You have said you are a unitarian. Thats obviose

Anyone of those three would make you a Gnostic ( you seem to beleive you have this knowledege no one else has) which in tern makes your teachings cultish. You keep saying that no one can answer your questions. True many of your questions can't be answered because you twist and make up scripture just like you did in John 1:1
I have been reading many of your heretic post and my friend you need to repent of your false doctrine and find the true Jesus. Have you noticed that you are in such a minority in what you beleive?

What I don't understand is how you with your obviuse intellect got hooked into this bad theology. With the way you apply your self to learning you could do alot of Good for the kingdome of God.

Look at History and all the wonderful Christian Bible teachers and theologians that teach Jesus is a part of the triune God head. That Jesus is not a created being but is the Logos, Equal with God and the Holy Spirit.
Here are just a few Bible teachers that thought Correctly. Some old and some new.
Ignatius
(35-107)
Polycarp
(69-155)
Quintus Florens Tertullian
(160-220)
Chrysostom (John of Antioch)
(347-407)
Patrick
(389-461)
DARK AGES OF THE CHURCH
(A.D. 500-1000)
Columba
(521-597)
REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH
(A.D. 1000-1500)
John Wycliffe
(1320-1384)
John Huss
(1369-1415)
Girolamo Savonarola
(1452-1498)
Ulrich Zwingli
(1484-1531)
William Tyndale
(1494-1536)
Martin Luther
(1483-1546)
Menno Simons
(1492-1559)
ENLIGHTMENT OF THE CHURCH
(A.D. 1500-1600)
John Calvin
(1509-1564) John Knox (1513-1572) WORD GROWTH IN THE CHURCH
(A.D. 1600-1700)
Roger Williams (1603-1684) John Bunyan (1628-1688) Richard Baxter
(1615-1691)
George Fox (1624-1691)
SANTIFICATION OF THE CHURCH
(A.D. 1700-1800)
Susanna Wesley (1659-1742) Alexander Mack
(1679-1735)
David Brainerd
(1718-1747)
Jonathon Edwards
(1703-1758)
George Whitefield
(1714-1770)
John Wesley
(1703-1791)
TRUTH PREVAILS IN THE CHURCH
(A.D. 1800-1900)
John Newton (1725-1807) Robert Raikes (1736-1811) Francis Asbury (1745-1816) William Carey
(1761-1834)
Christmas Evans
(1766-1838)
Robert Murray McCheyne
(1813-1843)
Adoniram Judson
(1788-1850)
Peter Cartwright
(1785-1872)
David Livingstone
(1813-1873)
Charles Grandison Finney
(1792-1875)
Stephen Paxon
(1837-1881)
Robert Moffat
(1795-1883)
Jeremiah McAuley
(1839-1884)
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
(1834-1892)
Absalom Backus Earle
(1812-1895)
Adoniram Judson Gordon
(1836-1895)
Dwight Lyman Moody
(1837-1899)
EVANGELISM OF THE CHURCH
(A.D. 1900-2000)
John Jasper
(1812-1901) Thomas DeWitt Talmage (1832-1902) James Hudson Taylor (1832-1905) Samuel Porter Jones (1847-1906) John Gibson Paton (1824-1907) William Bradford Booth (1829-1912) John Hyde (1865-1912) Benajah Harvey Carroll (1843-1914) John Wilbur Chapman
(1859-1918)
Albert Benjamin Simpson
(1884-1919)
Cyrus Ingersoll Scofield
(1843-1921)
Amzi Clarence Dixon
(1854-1925)
Reuben Archer Torrey
(1856-1928)
Frederick Brotherton Meyer
(1847-1929)
C. T. Studd
(1860-1931)
James M. Gray
(1851-1935)
William Ashley Sunday
(1862-1935)
Jonathan Goforth
(1859-1936)
Paul Rader
(1879-1938)
William Edward Biederwolf
(1867-1939)
T. T. Martin
(1862-1939)
Melvin Ernest Trotter
(1870-1940)
Henry Clay Morrison
(1857-1942)
Reuben (Uncle Bud) Robinson
(1860-1942)
George W. Truett
(1867-1944)
George Campbell Morgan
(1863-1945)
Lee Rutland Scarborough
(1870-1945)
Rodney (Gypsy) Smith
(1860-1947)
William Bell Riley
(1861-1947)
Louis S. Bauman
(1875-1950)
Evan Roberts
(1878-1950)
William Leroy Pettingill
(1886-1950)
Harry A. Ironside (1876-1951) Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) John Franklyn Norris (1877-1952) Thomas Todhunter Shields (1873-1955)
William Reed Newell
(1868-1956) John Edward Brown (1879-1957) Louis Entzminger (1876-1958) William Graham Scroggie
(1877-1958)
Mordecai Ham
(1878-1959)
Ernest Ira Reveal
(1880-1959)
Robert Pierce Shuler
(1880-1965)
Martin R. De Haan
(1891-1965)
Charles Frederick Weigle
(1871-1966)
Robert Reynolds Jones
(1883-1968)
Charles Edward Fuller
(1887-1968)
Alva J. McClain
(1888-1968)
Walter Lewis Wilson
(1881-1969)
William Culbertson
(1905-1971)
Dallas Franklin Billington
(1903-1972)
Fred Sheldon Donnelson
(1897-1974)
George Beauchamp Vick
(1901-1975)
Gaylord Ford Porter
(1893-1976)
Oliver Boyce Greene
(1915-1976)
Robert Greene Lee
(1886-1978)
John Richard Rice
(1895-1980)
Bascom Ray Lakin

Present day Bible teachers
J Vernon Magee
Chuck Smith (and over 600 Calvary chapel pastors)
Billy Grahm
Franklin Grahm
Chuck Colsen
Jon Coursen
Allister begg
John MaCarther
Dan Fuller
Norman Gehsler
Hank Hanegraph
David Hocking

And my list go go on to add thousands more. What do these teachers have in comman. They let the Holy Spirit interpret the scriptures for them, not man.



Instead what you have are know cults and cultish teachers like
Benny Hinn,
Joyce Meyer
T.D. Jakes
Kenneth Copeland
Paula White and much of TBN
And this list go go on for a little bit. Maybe a hundred or so. Point is you may not even be aware that your theology is on par with these cults, but it is


The charts that the Holy Pig and the Reformer put up are great. I for one am excited to see the commitment they have put into defending the faith. Solo he says it the way it is. Many on this board are probably seeing the truth for the first time.

The Deity of Christ
1 In the beginning awas the Word, and the bWord was cwith God, and the Word was dGod. 2 eHe was in the beginning with God.
The Preincarnate Work of Christ
3 fAll things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 gIn Him was life, and hthe life was the light of men. 5 And ithe light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not 1comprehend it.
The New King James Version. 1982 (Jn 1:1-5). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

The Gospel of John introduces the Lord Jesus Christ with three tremendous statements:
“In the beginning was the Word,â€Â
“And the Word was with God,â€Â
“And the Word was God.â€Â
“The Word†is one of the highest and most profound titles of the Lord Jesus Christ. To determine the exact meaning is not easy. Obviously the Lord Jesus Christ is not the logos of Greek philosophy; rather He is the memra of the Hebrew Scriptures. Notice how important the Word is in the Old Testament. For instance, the name for Jehovah was never pronounced. It was such a holy word that they never used it at all. But this is the One who is the Word and, gathering up everything that was said of Him in the Old Testament, He is now presented as the One “In the beginning.†This beginning antedates the very first words in the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.†That beginning can be dated, although I do not believe that anyone can date it accuratelyâ€â€it is nonsense to say that it is 4004 b.c., as Ussher’s dating has it. It probably goes back billions and billions of years. You see, you and I are dealing with the God of eternity. When you go back to creation He is already there, and that is exactly the way this is usedâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the beginning was the Word.†Notice it is not is the Word; it was not in the beginning that the Word started out or was begotten. Was (as Dr. Lenske points out) is known as a durative imperfect, meaning continued action. It means that the Word was in the beginning. What beginning? Just as far back as you want to go. The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth†(Gen. 1:1). Does that begin God? No, just keep on going back billions and trillions and “squillions†of years. I can think back to billions of years back of creationâ€â€maybe you can go beyond thatâ€â€but let’s put down a point there, billions of years back of creation. He already was; He comes out of eternity to meet us. He did not begin. “In the beginning was the Wordâ€Ââ€â€He was already there when the beginning was. “Well,†somebody says, “there has to be a beginning somewhere.†All right, wherever you begin, He is there to meet you, He is already past tense. “In the beginning was the Wordâ€Ââ€â€five words in the original language, and there is not a man on topside of this earth who can put a date on it or understand it or fathom it. This first tremendous statement starts us off in space, you see.
The second statement is this, “and the Word was with God.†This makes it abundantly clear that He is separate and distinct from God the Father. You cannot identify Him as God the Father because He is with God. “But,†someone says, “if He is with God, He is not God.†The third statement sets us straight, “and the Word was God.†This is a clear, emphatic declaration that the Lord Jesus Christ is God. In fact, the Greek is more specific than this, because in the Greek language the important word is placed at the beginning of the sentence and it reads, “God was the Word.†That is emphatic; you cannot get it more emphatic than hat. Do you want to get rid of the deity of Christ? My friend, you cannot get rid of it. The first three statements in John’s gospel tie the thing down. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â€Â
McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981).

 

[Vic C.]

The charts that the Holy Pig and the Reformer put up are great. I for one am excited to see the commitment they have put into defending the faith. Solo he says it the way it is. Many on this board are probably seeing the truth for the first time.

jgredline,

You have just provided us with an excellent example of how to defend the Faith wothout harsh comments. This is how we would like to see the basic Tenants of the Faith defended. I much rather see this than censor everything unorthodox that comes our way.

Peace and God bless,
Vic

 

[BradtheImpaler]

R7,

I guess jgreline finally proved you wrong. Your viewpoint is in the "minority" :o

Don't you know the way to ascertain truth is to simply go with what the majority believes? :wink:

 

[Klee shay]

Jesus is not an angel, and Jesus was not created. Jesus created all things in heaven and earth including ALL angels. To understand the three persons of the Godhead is not difficult, but it does take the same faith that it takes to know God. The Jews had Jesus killed because they understood that he was proclaiming to be God, but they did not believe, just as you and the non-trinitarians on this board. I know many, many who did not believe that Jesus is God until after they were born of God. As soon as they were born again, the fact that Jesus is God became resident in their being; including mine.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, Immanuel; God with us; Almighty God, the First and the Last, the Everlasting Father, etc.

Explain to me how you could not understand the simplicity of this verse claiming that Jesus is the Everlasting Father:

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. Isaiah 9:6

Until one is born of God, one cannot know or understand God.

You have succeeded in confusing the issue of what Jesus was saying, "not by my will but by thy will," with prophecy. You then imply those who do not understand this particular prophecy as you do cannot be born of God.

Well let's put this "reasoning" to the test when Jesus himself confessed that he did not know two things. The first being the hour of his return and the second being who would sit on his right side and who would sit on his left in the Kingdom. So does this "lack of understanding" remove him from being begotten of God?

No it does not. So don't recite prophecy and claim your "reasoning" of it determines that Jesus IS God and anyone who does not understand this are not born of God. For it is not by human decision those that are born of God. So kindly remove your human decision away from the revelation of God.

I will come back to prophecy later, but first I wanted to share a revelation that Jesus spake unto his disciples when he told them of Christ's Coming. After he told them of all the signs yet to be fulfilled he finished with; "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the LORD." MATTHEW 23:39

In the name of the Lord...blessed is he that cometh in it...Jesus came in it, teaching in it but returning all glory to the Father. So let us reveiw again ISAIAH 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Would Jesus not be called all these things if he did come in THE NAME of the Lord, as he declared all his ministry, miracles and prophecy in? This government is yet to be fulfilled also which is indicated another verse down. ISAIAH 9:7 "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Who will perform this - the son not yet given; the child not born; or the zeal of the LORD of hosts? The government and the names thereof will be given to this son but it was "given" of the Lord of hosts...and that is whom Jesus taught us to recognise. Not Jesus' goodness but the one who sent him. If you teach the gospel of Jesus then you will direct servants to the master; Jesus also respected the authority of.

I'll site another prophecy in ZECHARIAH 3:6-8. "And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH."

Whose servant? The LORD of hosts and the servant is his branch. So let us return to the scripture where Jesus spoke of branches, vines and husbandsmen.

JOHN 15:1-8 "I AM the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch canot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much furit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. HEREIN IS MY FATHER GLORIFIED, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples."

Why is his Father glorified? Because he is the husbandman who tends the vine - cutting and tethering the branches for much fruit. The Lord of Hosts who sent his branch was the one who established the vine.

You may teach that Jesus IS God because he carries God's authority and his title (coming in his name), but Jesus taught that God is the one whom HE abides in as we are to abide in Jesus. Does that make us husbandsman because we can bring forth fruit? No, for we are but branches and the fruit comes from the vine. Does that make Jesus the husbandman then, because he is the vine wherewith the branches stem? No. For it is the glory of the Father that he tends the branches of the vine; and Jesus did not come to take that away from him.

As we are to respect the vine which we stem, Jesus is also to respect the husbandman who establishes the harvest by what he gives and takes from the vine.

There is so much we don't know but that does not make us any less worthy to be born of God. We would all do well to remember that.

 

[gingercat]

R7,

I guess jgreline finally proved you wrong. Your viewpoint is in the "minority" :o

Don't you know the way to ascertain truth is to simply go with what the majority believes? :wink:

Yes, Brad, majority always win in the world, no matter what.

 

[BenJasher]

Instead what you have are know cults and cultish teachers like
Benny Hinn,
Joyce Meyer
T.D. Jakes
Kenneth Copeland
Paula White and much of TBN
And this list go go on for a little bit. Maybe a hundred or so. Point is you may not even be aware that your theology is on par with these cults, but it is

When did these guys fall to the level of being a cult? Did you read something about this in the Pentecostal Evangel? I would like to know where you got this information.

Benny Hinn is nothing more than just another pentecostal preacher. If he wasn't so full of his own self importance, it wouldn't be so revolting to watch him on the telly.

Joyce Meyers; what can I say? She is a woman preacher. That says a lot. Read into that what you want.

T.D. Jakes; who cares?

Kenneth Copeland may be a lot of things, but he isn't a cult preacher. He is probably my favorite out of the bunch you listed. If he was a Universalist, he would be the perfect example of what a preacher should be. And he is from Arkansas. That makes him even better.

TBN is just another gate to the city of Babylon. As a a matter of fact, without the life-giving presence of the Holy Spirit, all of Christianity will lead you back to the bondage of Babylon, where Nebuchadnezzar still rules with an iron fist.