Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe


I believe the contradiction that you are seeing is only in your own mind set... based only on your own wild imagination and limited spiritual knowledge of te Scripture.


Not necessarily. Do you know where your bosom is?



Please read again very closely to what I was saying… the Son was brought forth into this physical world BEFORE anything is MADE that was MADE (formed or fashioned)… meaning…

IOW, the Son physically FORMED / FASHIONED the material things that were already in existence… that the Father had CREATED (ex-nihilo) thru the power of his logos, in the beginning.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (thru God's logos - ex-nihilo), in the day that the LORD God (Son) made (formed / fashioned by hands) the earth and the heavens,….


Of course not... While the Son was the second man (creature) from heaven based on the Scripture... Adam being the first man (creature).... the Son, was born into existense by being brought forth into this physical world from the bosom of the Father... in the beginning.... unlike Adam who was physically made from the dust of the ground.



Of course not. That’s just based on the wild imaginations of your religious views.

While the Son was brought forth into this physical world coming from the bosom of the Father- in the beginning - becoming the only God physically FORMED for us to see and witness… He was AGAIN sent into this world and MADE flesh... thru the conception of our virgin Mary.



I advise that you don't put words in my mouth. Just continue to ask for clarification if you don't understand my position of the matter. Thanks.

Your argument is fallacious. Where do you see that I said .. the Son CREATED (ex-nihilo) everything we see? Are you making up story?

Do you understand the usages of the words “ create†and “make†in the Bible? No wonder… it is a stumbling block to you… you don’t see the harmony and the team work of the Father and Son during the creation process.... as documented in Genesis 1.

4given
I can't understand what you wrote. I am trying to understand your thinking. I make it simple, just answer my questions below, please.

I didn't declare in this post my religious views at all. I just asked you to explain what you mean, because I surely don't understand it.

Just answer my questions, they are simple:

Was Jesus created as a physical (someone that can be touched), before the world existed?

Was the physical world created by Jesus, the Son (whom you seem to say it was a physical God)?

Where in the Bible I can find the term ex-nihilo? What you mean by ex-nihilo?

If you answer these questions I will start to understand what your thinking is.

In this forum people assume a lot of things. For example, you are assuming you know my religious views. But, you really don't know them because I have never stated them for you. So, let me understand your views to establish a base for discussion.

mamre
 
Some wish to see 'elohiym as a plural of excellence.

I prefer to see it as the very first announcement to us that God is a God of unity and accomplishes all things in unity with those who love Him and whom he therefore glorifies.

It is therefore a plural of excellence but to view it that way alone misses its total impact.

We have examples like at Genesis 42:30 where Joseph is spoken of as the ’adho·neh′, (the plural of the word "lord") of Egypt. Does that mean that Joseph was the most excellent lord in Egypt? How could it when the Pharaoh who dubbed him that remained the highest lord over Egypt. So it must mean that Joseph was commissioned to function jointly with all the lords of Egypt. And it was a tribute to him that he would willingly function that way.

Did that make Joseph one and the same as the lords that he worked in unison with? Who would be so ridiculous to think so.

The theme of the scriptures is that we are all meant to exist in unison with each other and with God.

The relationship between God and His Son is our most superlative example of that.

I see the arguments of the religious groups on both sides of this issue are losing aspects of this reality.
 
Some wish to see 'elohiym as a plural of excellence.

I prefer to see it as the very first announcement to us that God is a God of unity and accomplishes all things in unity with those who love Him and whom he therefore glorifies.

It is therefore a plural of excellence but to view it that way alone misses its total impact.

We have examples like at Genesis 42:30 where Joseph is spoken of as the ’adho·neh′, (the plural of the word "lord") of Egypt. Does that mean that Joseph was the most excellent lord in Egypt? How could it when the Pharaoh who dubbed him that remained the highest lord over Egypt. So it must mean that Joseph was commissioned to function jointly with all the lords of Egypt. And it was a tribute to him that he would willingly function that way.

Did that make Joseph one and the same as the lords that he worked in unison with? Who would be so ridiculous to think so.

The theme of the scriptures is that we are all meant to exist in unison with each other and with God.

The relationship between God and His Son is our most superlative example of that.

I see the arguments of the religious groups on both sides of this issue are losing aspects of this reality.

Bravo Who Says!

Jesus Christ, the Son of God is, in everything, the perfect example of that. And He not only set the example, but made it possible for us to follow it to the 't.'

As Paul says in Romans, that we may reach the fullness of the stature of Christ, a perfect man. Jesus is the perfect man. He wants us to be perfect men too. For that reason He, being God, the Son, came down to earth to set the example. Even, being the only perfect man to ever walk on this earth He wanted to be baptized just to set the perfect example.

As Jesus set the example and became one with the Father, so can we be One with the Father too, in harmony, in unison as you say. And the Bible says that also.

Have a great day!
mamre
 
The people who have or will have life immortal are called gods in the bible. Yahshua became the FIRST BORN god when he was born into this world. Before then no god was ever born into this world. Yahshua was called Peniel and also (The Angel / Messenger) of (The Lord / Yahwah,)before he was born into this world. Yahwah is the only true Almighty God, and there is no other besides Him, nor will there ever be. Yahwah has many name titles, and Holy Spirit is one of His name titles.

JudaicChristian,

The people who have or will have life immortal and life eternal are called gods. Not just immortal, because, there are those that will resurrect and become immortal but will not have eternal life.

Jesus has commanded us to be perfect as our Father which is in Heaven. Being perfect as the Father is having life eternal. Having life eternal means being a god. Being a god means being one with Him and the Son.

It is important to make that distinction because immortal all mankind will become one day. Some for eternal life and some for condemnation.

have a great day!

mamre
 
Okay gentlemen, tell us who among these three are not God and considered idols ... as documentted in the Scripture.

1)The Father
2)The Son
3)The Holy Spirit

I am all ears.

The bone of contention, if the readers may remind the Apologizers, centered on the meaning of “ONEâ€. And due to my desire to uphold the Bible as our rule of our faith and practices, I cited Bible passages like Genesis 2:24, John 10:30, and Genesis 11:6 among others. I want to base our understanding on the Scriptures and not to some kind of corrupt history or tradition of men.

Where is your reference you seem to say that the Bible does not say there are three separate Gods who are in one accord unity? You say Deuteronomy 6:4? When both of you have already admitted that the “God†there is “Elohim†which is a “plural noun for God� Which, by the way indicates more than one?

Both of you are contradicting yourselves, apologizers. Your kind of ecumenical, Catholic-Protestant, Oneness, and Nicean Trinity is confusing all of you.
I don't understand how I have contradicted myself.
 
That you haven't studied is obvious and this is at the core of why you are wrong. Even Satan can give people a burning in their bosom. The Bible itself does not even state to pray it, or any other religious book, as to whether or not it is true. In fact, this is what the Bible does state:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

But it is your opinion. And much of it is wrong because you haven't studied.

Well, it is interesting you know so much about me to say that I have not studied.

If Satan could burn your bosom you would be sad, angry, proud, miserable, negative, in fear. You see, there is no joy or truth in him, he can't fake happiness. He is the complete opposite of Jesus Christ. Where there is joy in Christ, there is sadness in Satan. Where there is truth and life in Christ, there is lies and death in Satan.

So if you pray to the Father in the name of Christ, there is no way that Satan will answer in His instead. He can try to preventing you from praying, but he cannot take the place of our Father. That line of communication is direct with the Father. And you cannot be tempted more than you can bear.

The way truths are confirmed in your bosom is through an extreme inner happiness that is sweet and inexpressible in words. A certitude that cannot be denied. Whereas if were Satan answering you would be unhappy, in doubt and in fear of being wrong.

The Father gives you peace to your heart, Satan gives anxiety and fear.

It is definitely NOT through prayer that Satan will deceive you, unless you pray to him.

Actually, the most common way that Satan uses to deceive people is by keeping people from praying. He knows that if you don't pray you don't have a connection with the Father, and thus, Satan, can keep you ignorant. And when you read the bible he can whisper false concept into you ears and your heart.

More than you realize, Satan utilize truths to deceive people. Except, he doesn't say all the truth, he says some of it and mix the rest with falsehood.

And he prefers to talk indirectly to you. If he appeared to people and tried to deceive, most people would reject him because there is no light in him even (if he appeared as an angel of light), because you can feel his anger. So he needs two things:

1) partial truths mixed with false concepts and doctrines,
2) someone to teach that truth mixed with false concepts.

Guess who are the people he tries to enlist to teach half truths and falsehoods combined?

He encourages preachers, leaders and people in position of influence to teach some of the truths of the bible mixed with their own opinion or interpretation. So the people that follow them will be in the wrong path. That way they keep them from the whole truth. Plus they rarely tell you to ask Father in Heaven about what they preach. Why? Because they are not certain themselves.

That is why you need to pray constantly to God lest you fall into the temptation of believing in your own interpretation. If you pray you are not deceived by man, or Satan. And as you pray humbly your pride don't deceive you either. Satan loves proud people because they think they have all the truth but they don't. That way they are also kept from the truth.

Guess who are the most proud? The learned people, the scholar people. They are proud of their accomplishments, so they think they know everything because of their own abilities. They even think they know God. Therefore, they are also kept from the whole truth.

Anyone that discourages people to pray is doing the work of darkness.

Bringing people to the true Christ is at least a part of these forums.

Isn't bringing souls to Christ the first and foremost important thing to do?

You are not refuting them because you can't. I need not ask God whether polytheism is true or not because he explicitly says he is the only One. I do not need to pray about that.

What you are teaching is anti-biblical and false. Please deal with the Scriptures I posted showing that there is only one God. There never has been and never will be another, including you.

I don't need to refute, nor I want to. It has never being my intention to debate or refute peoples beliefs. Instead I am expound the scriptures and giving my witness of what I have learned so people can shed the false concepts and enlarge the truth in them. And the only way to do that is by praying to Father in Heaven as He is the source of truth.

Please read what I wrote:

"first begotten" or "firstborn" does not mean "the first born of all creatures."

That is to say, first begotten is firstborn, they are two different translations of the same word and mean the same thing. What it does not mean is that Jesus is "the first born of all creatures."

The word firstborn itself has different meanings and does not necessarily even refer to one who has been born.

Yes any word in the bible or in any book can be taken literally or figuratively. No doubt about it, this is nothing new.
However, you are making the arbitrary decision of telling others that this "firstborn" should be taken figuratively, but the other "firstborn" should be taken literally. How do you know that? Did the Father revealed it to you?


I don't need to be a prophet since the Bible makes this abundantly clear. Again, I posted passages of Scripture showing that Jesus could not have been born but were completely passed over by yourself and others. But I will post them again so that you are without excuse:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Clearly, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the Word (Christ) was not made, otherwise verse three is false.

Yes you don't need to be a prophet, but not because you have the bible. But you need to be like a prophet, because prophets pray to God constantly, how do you think they teach the truth?

Logical conclusion. Here is again your opinion. Your interpretation. I would have to take your word for that. Hence, the need to pray to Father in Heaven.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Again, if Jesus can be said to have created all things, which means everything that has ever been created, as rest of the verse and John 1:3 state, and he can be said to be before all things, then clearly, the only logical conclusion is that he is not to be counted among the things, he is uncreated.

This, too, we have been over before. I realize this is a difficult topic but it isn't that difficult. Three Persons in the one Being that is God, is not the equivalent of saying three Gods are the One God, nor that the three Persons are one Person.

I explicitly stated that the language is as precise as we can make it and was chosen specifically to avoid such statements. Please don't make these arguments again.

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Need I say more. I don't need to add anything to this it is so clear a baby can understand.

But, you read this and will say, this firstborn in not firstborn (because the pastor told us that Jesus is not a creature).
Se how you need to add things?

So do you believe your pastor, minister what have you, or do you believe in God first? Ask God if what you are reading in this scripture is true. That is simple as to look at the "snake in the stick."

The doctrine of the Trinity explicitly states that there is only one God.But you have previously stated more than once that there is more than one God. Here is yet another Scripture that proves your position wrong.
[/quote]

The problem with trinity is simple:
1- A whole that is made up of three has three 1/3 parts. You cannot have 1/3 of a God.
2- Trinity, to make them perfectly coequal, it needs to make Jesus, the Son, a Father like God the Father.

#1 is obvious.
#2 you have three Gods because you eliminate the Father-Son relationship, as you made them coequal Gods. Worshiping three equal Gods makes you are a polytheist. The only way for you to escape the polytheism is to concoct the mysterious and inexplicable oneness of the trinity and ask people to believe you. They would have to believe in something they have no idea what it is, because even the ones that invented trinity don't know.

3 is not equal to 1.

If you want to know the thruth you need to go to the source of the truth.

You need to ask this to yourself:

Did God came out of the bible or is it the bible that came out of God.


Believing in trinity is to believe in a God that came out of the Bible.

Have a great day,

mamre
 
I can't understand what you wrote. I am trying to understand your thinking. I make it simple, just answer my questions below, please.

I didn't declare in this post my religious views at all. I just asked you to explain what you mean, because I surely don't understand it.

Just answer my questions, they are simple:

Was Jesus created as a physical (someone that can be touched), before the world existed?

Was the physical world created by Jesus, the Son (whom you seem to say it was a physical God)?

Where in the Bible I can find the term ex-nihilo? What you mean by ex-nihilo?

If you answer these questions I will start to understand what your thinking is.

In this forum people assume a lot of things. For example, you are assuming you know my religious views. But, you really don't know them because I have never stated them for you. So, let me understand your views to establish a base for discussion.

mamre

I believe I have answered all of your questions specifically one by one. Therefore, do not insinuate otherwise. Now, either you seriously try to understand what I am saying or get somebody to help you read and comprehend.

I will not keep repeating myself, especially, when I think you’re just playing dumb in order to use your tactical maneuvering by philosophically distorting the discussion ... thru feeding us with your insinuations based on ridiculous made up premises.

Here’s the last time I will clarify this matter to you….

First...
a)The Son was brought forth into this physical world when God said… “LET THERE BE LIGHT” before the world was. The brightness of the glory of the Son provided the Light in the beginning (Alpha), Gen. 1:3 as he will also provide the Light in the end (Omega) in the New Jerusalem to come (Rev. 21). The physical manifestation of the brightness of the glory of the Lord (Son) shows how the Son came forth from the spiritual realm of the Father into our own physical world.

b) The Son does have many physical attributes and likeness as recorded in the Scripture.. i.e. Burning Light; Glorified Man; a Worm... etc., etc.... here's just an example...

"And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, [as] I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. And He put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven," Eze 8:1-3

Second... Biblically speaking.....

CREATED THE WORLD ?.... NO

MADE THE WORLD... YES

As I have posted before, it was the Father who thru the power of his logos created the materials needed in the beginning (Gen. 1:1)…. in order for the Son to physically form / fashion by his own hands the heavens and earth.... (Gen. 2:4)

Third...

What part of the Creating something from nothing (ex-nihilo) thru power of God’s logos (words) do you not understand in Genesis 1?

And do not waste my time... projecting your weaknesses on us... by employing your words games tactical maneuvering.... in trying to look for the exact word "ex-nihilo" in the Bible.


Just in case, here's link and explanation of the meaning of "ex=nihilo"... Ex nihilo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it is interesting you know so much about me to say that I have not studied.
Did you read why I wrote that? I was responding to your statement: "This may seem a bit outlandish, how can somebody know?I know not of myself, not because I have studied and come to the conclusion."

That's your own admission that your conclusions aren't based on any study. Maybe you meant something else but it sure comes across this way.

mamre said:
If Satan could burn your bosom you would be sad, angry, proud, miserable, negative, in fear. You see, there is no joy or truth in him, he can't fake happiness. He is the complete opposite of Jesus Christ. Where there is joy in Christ, there is sadness in Satan. Where there is truth and life in Christ, there is lies and death in Satan.

So if you pray to the Father in the name of Christ, there is no way that Satan will answer in His instead. He can try to preventing you from praying, but he cannot take the place of our Father. That line of communication is direct with the Father. And you cannot be tempted more than you can bear.

The way truths are confirmed in your bosom is through an extreme inner happiness that is sweet and inexpressible in words. A certitude that cannot be denied. Whereas if were Satan answering you would be unhappy, in doubt and in fear of being wrong.

The Father gives you peace to your heart, Satan gives anxiety and fear.

It is definitely NOT through prayer that Satan will deceive you, unless you pray to him.
Satan can counterfeit miracles and can appear as an angel of light, do you really think that he won't give someone the warm fuzzies if it suits his purpose to lead them astray?

mamre said:
I don't need to refute, nor I want to. It has never being my intention to debate or refute peoples beliefs. Instead I am expound the scriptures and giving my witness of what I have learned so people can shed the false concepts and enlarge the truth in them. And the only way to do that is by praying to Father in Heaven as He is the source of truth.
No, it isn't. This has been pointed out to you by more than one person. If you are not going to debate, then please leave the discussion. This is a debate forum and not addressing people's points is very rude and inconsiderate. If you only continually push false Mormon doctrine, then you are in violation of the TOS.

mamre said:
Yes any word in the bible or in any book can be taken literally or figuratively. No doubt about it, this is nothing new.
However, you are making the arbitrary decision of telling others that this "firstborn" should be taken figuratively, but the other "firstborn" should be taken literally. How do you know that? Did the Father revealed it to you?
Because there are rules for biblical interpretation to keep people from interpreting things incorrectly.

mamre said:
Yes you don't need to be a prophet, but not because you have the bible. But you need to be like a prophet, because prophets pray to God constantly, how do you think they teach the truth?

Logical conclusion. Here is again your opinion. Your interpretation. I would have to take your word for that. Hence, the need to pray to Father in Heaven.
It is a logical conclusion.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

If Jesus was created, then this is a false statement.

mamre said:
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Need I say more. I don't need to add anything to this it is so clear a baby can understand.

But, you read this and will say, this firstborn in not firstborn (because the pastor told us that Jesus is not a creature).
Se how you need to add things?
Cut it out with the condescending remarks. I knew you would get caught up on verse 15 which is why I didn't include it. Context determines the meaning of a word. Clearly, since verses 16 and 17 do not allow for Jesus to have been created, the context demands that "firstborn" here not literally mean one who was physically born first.

"Fristborn" can refer to one who has preeminence, the rights of one who is firstborn. And that fits the passage perfectly. It is a clear statement that Jesus is preeminent over creation. We know this because verses 16 and 17 state that everything was created through him and by him.

mamre said:
The problem with trinity is simple:
1- A whole that is made up of three has three 1/3 parts. You cannot have 1/3 of a God.
2- Trinity, to make them perfectly coequal, it needs to make Jesus, the Son, a Father like God the Father.

#1 is obvious.
#2 you have three Gods because you eliminate the Father-Son relationship, as you made them coequal Gods. Worshiping three equal Gods makes you are a polytheist. The only way for you to escape the polytheism is to concoct the mysterious and inexplicable oneness of the trinity and ask people to believe you. They would have to believe in something they have no idea what it is, because even the ones that invented trinity don't know.

3 is not equal to 1.
Again, math does not prove nor disprove the Trinity. As to your first point, my previous analogy to the Triple Point of Water, shows that indeed, a whole can simultaneously exist in three separate parts while remaining a whole. To say that God is 1/3 this and 1/3 that goes beyond what Scripture states.

As to your second point, you have no basis for making such an argument. Equal in nature does not mean that Jesus would also have to be the Father.
 
Anyone that discourages people to pray is doing the work of darkness.
I agree. Now which poster did this? I will join you in berating them publically!

I don't need to refute, nor I want to. It has never being my intention to debate or refute peoples beliefs. Instead I am expound the scriptures and giving my witness of what I have learned so people can shed the false concepts and enlarge the truth in them.
Perhaps you did not intend to come across as you do, but this sounds very much like an assertion that you are the bearer of all truth and we are to sit at your feet and learn.

Again, this may not be your intent, but what you say does give that impression. But I certainly would not want to discourage you from bringing what you believe to be Biblical truth to the attention of the rest of us - I do the same all the time. But neither you nor I get to "bypass" the challenge of dealing with scriptural (and other) challenges to our respective positions.

Once more, no one is saying we should not seek God's wisdom through prayer. But the Scriptures are what they are - and there is indeed a "fundamental" truth about what they are saying. And when people disagree about they are saying, it really never helps for each side to simply tell the other to "go pray about it", as if there is not further exegetical work to do to resolve the disagreement.
 
Genesis 1 uses the word "Elohim" for God, but in Genesis 2:4 Scripture uses the word "YHWH" for our Lord God, the Son. Elohim is a Plural Name and means The Judges. YHWH is a singular name and is the name of the LORD.

The LORD is called YHWH in the Old and Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The LORD YHWH is the Only Begotten Son of the Invisible Spirit of God. He is the Image or Physical incarnation of the invisible God. YHWH or Jesus is the Only God we will ever see, physically.

Yahwah is God's personal name, the only name given to us by God through Moses. Elohyim is one of Yahwah's many name titles.
 
"What is man that you are mindful of him...............You made him a little LOWER than the angels, yet crowned him with glory and honor"

Actually this quote: "lower than the angels," in the Hebrew version is: "lower than the gods."

We have countless examples of God's messengers (angels) demonstrating might far greater than that of man. So saying "There are no "other beings mightier than man that to us could be considered as 'gods'" is flat out ignoring what scripture shows us over and over again.
As far as polytheism goes, isn't a bekief in the trinity doctrine polytheist? Anyway here's the definition:

Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses. These are usually assembled into a pantheon, along with their own mythologies and rituals.

The FACT that the scriptures show us that many mighty ones (gods) exists is difficult to argue against. We must not confuse this fact with the idea that the creator of all, THE GOD has these other created mighty ones on par with him. They exist, but are all still subject to THE GOD, it's pretty simple.

Yes, correctly put.
Worshiping many gods is polytheism, not the simple belief in the existence of many gods. Besides, like you well said, the Bible itself has plenty of evidence that there are many gods. Paul mention it, Psalms 82 mentions it, Daniel, Joshua mention it, and most important of all Jesus himself utilizes that fact to tell the Jews He is the Son of God.

Jesus is the one God the stands and judges among the gods. In Isaiah, the the Father promises that Jesus would divide Him a portion with the mighty because of His obedience. It is all there.

And that is why the scriptures uses the terms Most High God. This is the Father, the Most High God, which implies that there are other gods less high.


mamre.
 
It was a patronizing question - anyone can see that. You implied that I have arrived at my view on the matter at issue by a less than honourable manner.


This is really not true at all. You often will see the following pattern in these forums:

1. Person A asserts some doctrinal position, and perhaps makes the relevant Biblical case;

2. Person B then either undermines the argument of person A and / or provides a different Biblical argument that suggests that something might be wrong with the position that person A has asserted;

3. Person A then suggests or implies that person B needs to "ask God" with the expectation that this will bring person B around to the position of person A.

This is immensely patronizing and dismissive on the part of person A. If we all agree that the Scriptures are the bedrock foundation from which we derive correct positions, it is entirely proper and appropriate that we "debate" what the Scripture are really saying. Obviously, each participant has the responsibility to approach the scriptures seeking God's guidance - that's non-negotiable.


Not really. Perhaps you do not agree with this, but almost all of us in this forum believe that the Bible is the "key" source for our understanding of God and his work. So we "debate" what the Scriptures mean. Its really pointless to simply "claim" that "God told me that X is true, so I do not need to defend X scripturally". Anyone can say that.


Again, a very patronizing comment - you presume that I (and perhaps others) are approaching the Bible without the appropriate Spirit. And you have no evidence at all to support such a presumption.


I have already answered as best as I can. You pose a demonstrably false "either-or" - kind of like the "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

Let me try to be as clear as possible. For those of us who consider the Scriptures to be the authoritative source in matters of faith and practice, your question makes no sense. And this is precisely because we who believe these things ground what we believe to be true in the study of the Bible. So the question as posed cannot be answered in the way you have posed it. So your question is like asking: Which do you prefer: taking penicillin or seeking a cure for your bacterial infection? Such a question makes no sense for those who believe that it is precisely through the use of penicillin that the infection is cured.

Truth is truth. Truth is final. When you know the truth there is no discussion, there is no debate. No matter what you believe. If you know the truth that is the final quest, or should be the final quest of every human being, to know the truth.

So, one study and commune with God and ask His witness for what he/she learns. God gives him/her the testimony of the truth and he/she goes and debate the answer God gave him?

The scriptures are the words that came from the mouth of God. Those scriptures are instructions for us to go back to our Father in Heaven. There not subject to debate. Instructions from God.

Do you understand what instructions from God means? Instruction are not subject of debate, specially coming from God who know what He is talking about.

That would similar of your mom giving you an instruction: Drew go to the grocery and buy me a 12 eggs?

Drew would say: "Wait a minute: let me debate that instruction first.
Let see: She said go to the grocery. Grocery? Well, she should have said super-market. Wait, does super-market have a dash in between the words or it is one word? How about those eggs? Are they fresh? Mom, I don't think you meant eggs, I think you meant fresh eggs. When do you want me to go, now? How about I go after dinner?"

The above is your proposition. God gave us instructions and you want to debate them instead of asking His help to understand them.

Lets me know what arguments you have about this.

have a good day,
mamre
 
Yahwah is God's personal name, the only name given to us by God through Moses. Elohyim is one of Yahwah's many name titles.

Correct.... The name you provided above "Yahwah" belongs to the Son. You don't know who the Father is.
 
Truth is truth. Truth is final. When you know the truth there is no discussion, there is no debate. No matter what you believe. If you know the truth that is the final quest, or should be the final quest of every human being, to know the truth.
Is this a coded way of saying "I, mamre, know the truth and any challenges to that, even if grounded in Biblical and other arguments miss the point that I, mamre, have direct access to the truth"?

It sure sounds like this. We all read the Bible, we all think, we all interpret. And we, as a community try to work out what the Scriptures say. No one has privileged insight into the truth to the point where s/he is "above" dealing with other arguments based on the Scriptures.

I politely suggest that no one else in this thread, and perhaps this forum, has the same position on the nature of the quest for Biblical truth as you appear to hold.

I suggest that we more or less all believe the following:

1. The Scriptures are the inspired word of God;

2. Any claim of "personal revelation" of truth must be tested against scripture, with scripture being the final authority;

3. The Scriptures are rich and complex and it is difficult to understand them;

4. Therefore, as a community we work together to get at the truth. And this invariably will involve "debate" or discussion.

Now maybe I misunderstand you but, to me anyway, you seem to be claiming that we need to accept your doctrinal positions with you needing to defend those positions against any scriptural challenges that might arise. Is this really what you believe?
 
Is this a coded way of saying "I, mamre, know the truth and any challenges to that, even if grounded in Biblical and other arguments miss the point that I, mamre, have direct access to the truth"?

It sure sounds like this. We all read the Bible, we all think, we all interpret. And we, as a community try to work out what the Scriptures say. No one has privileged insight into the truth to the point where s/he is "above" dealing with other arguments based on the Scriptures.

I politely suggest that no one else in this thread, and perhaps this forum, has the same position on the nature of the quest for Biblical truth as you appear to hold.

I suggest that we more or less all believe the following:

1. The Scriptures are the inspired word of God;

2. Any claim of "personal revelation" of truth must be tested against scripture, with scripture being the final authority;

3. The Scriptures are rich and complex and it is difficult to understand them;

4. Therefore, as a community we work together to get at the truth. And this invariably will involve "debate" or discussion.

Now maybe I misunderstand you but, to me anyway, you seem to be claiming that we need to accept your doctrinal positions with you needing to defend those positions against any scriptural challenges that might arise. Is this really what you believe?

Hi, you could be right? Yet, we are to be 'settled in the Faith' as 'i' see it stated.
To me if I stated that as such, it would mean yes indeed, this IS THE WAY THAT I BELIEVE IT!;) Eph. 4:5

And 'if' I did not BELIEVE it this way, I would need to find the FAITH that could be believed by me!

And as far as the Godhead is believed? I do BELIEVE IN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST! Eternal Doctrine of Christ. + much else!:yes
 
Correct.... The name you provided above "Yahwah" belongs to the Son. You don't know who the Father is.

I missed the part of the discussion that came to the conclusion that Jesus = Jehovah/YHWH of the Israelite scriptures so can you please share with me how this conclusion came about. I always though Jesus was distinct from "the LORD God, and that instead of being YHWH, he was Yahoshua/Yeshua/Yahshua which means YHWH is salvation. Meaning that he is the special SON of YHWH as opposed to being YHWH himself.
 
I missed the part of the discussion that came to the conclusion that Jesus = Jehovah/YHWH of the Israelite scriptures so can you please share with me how this conclusion came about. I always though Jesus was distinct from "the LORD God, and that instead of being YHWH, he was Yahoshua/Yeshua/Yahshua which means YHWH is salvation. Meaning that he is the special SON of YHWH as opposed to being YHWH himself.

Let me refer you to my revious posts then...

Here's one of the many biblical proof text of the Deity of the Son of God. Unless of course, your religious views believe that YHWH is not God, then you have a basis for further argument.

In the Book of Isaiah 43, Our Lord YHWH, the Son of God, made the following declarations......

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD (YHWH) and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. v11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Two negative statements = positive... He is the only God physically formed for us to see and witness. To be witnessed is to be seen or experienced

If no man hath seen the invisible God at anytime then YHWH could not have been the invisible God Father - as others would like us to believe - but the Son of God himself, our saviour- the express image of the invisible God.

His Father is the invisible God of whom no man hath seen at anytime nor his name ' been revealed to anyone...

Rev. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. v13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, v15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, .....

Note: Insertion is mine for clarity of presentation.

I guess, one of the main problems of your Apologetics Ministry where you belong is that you all believe only on your own selves. You want others to be in the same mold as you all are in. You don’t even listen to other’s perspective or point of view. You all think you got the absolute truth… yet, I see that you’re NOT well verse to the things that you are fond of arguing about.

The fact is, I have already mentioned this things to you on several occasions in my posts that… NO man knows the real name of the invisible God Father at this time…. but instead of listening…. you decided to pretend to know better and argue about it... fallaciously…. contrary to what the Scriptures says. Look below...

Revelation 3:12 HIM THAT OVERCOMETH will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: AND I WILL WRITE UPON HIM THE NAME OF MY GOD and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Unless of course, you believe that Jesus was just pulling your legs, then, there's nothing more to overcometh in the end, correct? Therefore, there's no need for Jesus to write his Father's name.... because, accourding to what you have been telling us, mamre... you know it already, correct? Of course not!

Rev. 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns;and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. v13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, v15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, .....

As I have said, you can not just argue about the things that you know nothing about. Let me know if I could be more of help. The Son is our God whether you like it or not. And He is worthy of our worship.

No one comes to the Father except thru him.

God Bless
 
Still waiting for an answer 4given from a post a couple of pages back. It was small and easy to miss.
 
Still waiting for an answer 4given from a post a couple of pages back. It was small and easy to miss.

Correct me if I am wrong... is it not your belief that there is only "ONE" (numeric) God?

Where as the Bible states the following....

1 JOHN 5
7 For there are THREE (numeric) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these THREE (numeric) are one (unity).

IF you are not contradicting yourself, tell us who among the three mentioned above not God... the Father; the Word; the Holy Ghost? Please explain yourself and educate me. Thanks

Note: Insertions are mine for presentation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top