Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Carry_Your_Name]

It is just an English word that best approximates the distinctions within the Trinity.

No sir, you accused me of “equivocating”, and yet you’re guilty of the same thing when it comes down to the definition of “person”, don’t use “tradition” as an excuse. This “tradition” is not in the Bible, and I’m no Catholic.

Which is not at all relevant. This is one of the fallacies anti-Trinitarians use. I have given ample evidence which supports this already.

I’m not “anti-Trinitarian”, I’m anti-hypocrisy and anti-evasiveness. You keep diverting to theology, but I’m not talking theology with you, I’m targeting your dismissive attitude, the only ample evidence you’ve given is your dismissive attitude.

Again, you're fallaciously begging the question by presuming that persons who deny the deity of Jesus, indeed who strongly oppose the deity of Jesus, are "fellow brothers and sisters."

You’re falsely denouncing them as non-believers, and falsely accusing me of “begging the question”. I didn’t beg any question, I went by the definition in Matt. 12:50.

That's one way to avoid addressing things.

For the first dismissal, this is what you had stated:

"Again, Jesus defined a fellow brother or sister as one who does the will of God (Matt. 12:50), he never denounced anybody for a theological error, quite the contrary, he forgave those who spoke against him."

I responded: "Context, context, context."

What do I mean? First, you don't even define what Jesus means by "one who does the will of God." Could it be, or at least include, John 6:40:

Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (ESV)

As an inconvenient fact, God has children but no grandchildren, all believers were born as nonbelievers, one must be born again and baptized to truly believe, any work you do I would be proof of your belief, and that must be a conscious, personal decision. That’s the whole purpose of preaching the gospel. If you see them as a lost cause since they’re “already condemned”, then what’s the point of saving any of their souls?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And, just how do you know that Jesus said flesh and blood do not reveal his true nature? Did Jesus reveal that to you out of thin air or did you happen to read it in the Bible? Did Peter or any of the disciples have access to the same Bible, so that they knew what they were supposed to say? Can you find any other instance of that being repeated in the NT outside of the gospels? What is the purpose of the Bible? How does God mainly speak to us?

So, to argue that only God reveals the true nature of Jesus, is true in a sense, but to say he does so apart from what he has revealed to us in Scripture, is to completely undermine the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It is to say that we cannot trust what it says, that God has communicated in such a way that we cannot know what he says, and instead we must rely on something subjective.

Those disciples had access to the OT Scripture, they were educated in the synagogues, but Jesus didn’t ask them what the OT Scripture said, he asked for Peter’s personal opinion- based on his personal experience of God’s power in his life, the signs, wonders and miracles. Bible itself only provides you head knowledge of God, to truly believe its message, you must have the ears to hear them and the eyes to observe them in real life, amid all the noises, to feel God’s presence, to discern those signs and wonders, and to experience the power of God. Otherwise you’ll just repeat hearsay - “some say Elijah, some John the Baptist, some another prophet.”

Of course you can trust what the scripture says, you can trust that every word is true and inspired by God, but you’re not gonna understand it and relate to it. Tell me, why is the Bible, an ancient collection of books RELEVANT to you in 21st century in the western culture? I’m not asking about its truthfulness or authenticity, I’m asking about its relevance to you. After all, the gospels were 1st century history in the Middle East centered around the Jewish messiah called Jesus; the epistles were letters Paul wrote to the early churches; Revelation was an end time vision to apostle John and the seven churches in modern day Turkey, how does any of these matter to you and change your life?

 

[Free]

No sir, you accused me of “equivocating”,

Because you did.

and yet you’re guilty of the same thing when it comes down to the definition of “person”, don’t use “tradition” as an excuse.

No, I didn’t equivocate. I suggested you study what means, and strongly suggest that again. Why would I use tradition as an “excuse”? Should I not use it the way it was first used in regards to the Trinity? Why should I deviate? That would only cause confusion.

I’m not “anti-Trinitarian”,

I never said you were.

I’m anti-hypocrisy and anti-evasiveness.

So, why do you those then?

You keep diverting to theology, but I’m not talking theology with you, I’m targeting your dismissive attitude, the only ample evidence you’ve given is your dismissive attitude.

This is a theological discussion and if you’re not going to discuss theology, then please, leave the discussion. This has not been edifying in the slightest.

You’re falsely denouncing them as non-believers, and falsely accusing me of “begging the question”. I didn’t beg any question,

You just begged the question again.

I went by the definition in Matt. 12:50.

Except you didn’t. You can’t use that definition to support a single person here that you don’t know personally. Besides, as I pointed out, that is not how one becomes a believer; it is just what true believers do.

As an inconvenient fact, God has children but no grandchildren, all believers were born as nonbelievers, one must be born again and baptized to truly believe, any work you do I would be proof of your belief, and that must be a conscious, personal decision. That’s the whole purpose of preaching the gospel. If you see them as a lost cause since they’re “already condemned”, then what’s the point of saving any of their souls?

I really have no idea of what you’re saying here.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But what does Scripture say?

That is, the Bible is sufficient to know about God and about Jesus, and in so knowing about them, come to know them and not a false god or false christ.

See, knowing ABOUT them is one thing, knowing them is another. It’s the difference between watching a football match on the bleachers and playing a football in the field.

 

[JLB]

Jesus is not suggesting the angels of God are sons of God,

Jesus isn’t suggesting, He is stating the truth that angels are sons of God.

Why would anyone who names the name of Christ think otherwise.


Who son’s do you think angels are if not sons of God?


God created Adam.

Adam is a son of God.

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:37


Who do you think created angels?