1+1+1=ONE

[Scotth1960]

See?! More evasion and shifting of burden-of-proof.

My exegesis is awaiting your confession of possible error in Tradition.

Wow! That's quite a double standard from someone who just repeats one non-proof-text

and a bunch of tradition. I've asked you for ONE scripture that says God is 3 persons. Take

your own challenge.

I'm awaiting your confession of possible Traditional error.

I am awaiting for you to confess that you are really Sola Scriptura. Since you expect me to produce a Scripture that says persons. I can't. And you can't produce one that says "no persons". So all we can go by to interpret the NT is somebody's TRADITION (traditions), in the sense of both written and spoken oral traditions (as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Possible error in Tradition? Which traditions are spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? Which traditions after the NT was completed agree with the tradition of the NT. Can these traditions that are extra-biblical err? Where does 2 Thessalonians 2:15 point us? Which Christians after the NT was completed should we read? Clement? Ignatius? Polycarp?
What about them: weren't they Trinitarians? God bless you. Scott in Erie

[/quote]
You keep going by a sola Scriptura presupposition. Don't you understand that neither the word "persons" nor the idea that "no persons" is in Scripture. I infer the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons. You infer that they are not. My belief comes from identifiable Tradition. It's public, and Greek. Which language was ever used to defend your "Oneness is closer to truth" doctrine. Let's start there. What is Oneness. And why is it closer to the truth than Trinity doctrine?
Take care.
Scott in Erie

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

See?! More evasion and shifting of burden-of-proof.

My exegesis is awaiting your confession of possible error in Tradition.

Wow! That's quite a double standard from someone who just repeats one non-proof-text

and a bunch of tradition. I've asked you for ONE scripture that says God is 3 persons. Take

your own challenge.

I'm awaiting your confession of possible Traditional error.

I am awaiting for you to confess that you are really Sola Scriptura. Since you expect me to produce a Scripture that says persons. I can't. And you can't produce one that says "no persons". So all we can go by to interpret the NT is somebody's TRADITION (traditions), in the sense of both written and spoken oral traditions (as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Possible error in Tradition? Which traditions are spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? Which traditions after the NT was completed agree with the tradition of the NT. Can these traditions that are extra-biblical err? Where does 2 Thessalonians 2:15 point us? Which Christians after the NT was completed should we read? Clement? Ignatius? Polycarp?
What about them: weren't they Trinitarians? God bless you. Scott in Erie

[/QUOTE]


No. I'm not Sola Scriptura.

No. Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius weren't Trinitarian.

Since you have no grasp of reality and no credibility or integrity, I will leave you to your double-standards and prove-the-negative irrationality. I've endured it long enough.

Your sense of reason is even more flawed than your doctrine, which is quite infuriating to those of us with reason and integrity.

 

[livingbygrace]

I have a question

If Christ was God Himself on earth, when did this happen? From birth?

If so why did the Holy Spirit descend on Christ in bodily form at his Baptism, there would be no need.

 

[Scotth1960]

[quote=PneumaPsucheSoma;402291][/b]


I am awaiting for you to confess that you are really Sola Scriptura. Since you expect me to produce a Scripture that says persons. I can't. And you can't produce one that says "no persons". So all we can go by to interpret the NT is somebody's TRADITION (traditions), in the sense of both written and spoken oral traditions (as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Possible error in Tradition? Which traditions are spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? Which traditions after the NT was completed agree with the tradition of the NT. Can these traditions that are extra-biblical err? Where does 2 Thessalonians 2:15 point us? Which Christians after the NT was completed should we read? Clement? Ignatius? Polycarp?
What about them: weren't they Trinitarians? God bless you. Scott in Erie

[/quote]


No. I'm not Sola Scriptura.

No. Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius weren't Trinitarian.

Since you have no grasp of reality and no credibility or integrity, I will leave you to your double-standards and prove-the-negative irrationality. I've endured it long enough.

Your sense of reason is even more flawed than your doctrine, which is quite infuriating to those of us with reason and integrity.[/quote]


You continually use personal language about me, something I don't do about you. You continually make it personal.. I don't do that. You expect us to believe your doctrine, but leave you teaching half-defined at best. You also assume these early writers Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius aren't Trinitarian. That is your inference, based on what may be the fact that they didn't use the term "Trinity". That's an argument from silence. A man who never writes the word "Trinity" in his extant writings therefore doesn't believe in the Trinity. That's presuming too much. People don't necessarily reveal everything they really believe. You should know that! You continually delay revealing your Tradition, since you assume that Trinitarian Tradition is erroneous. I'm still waiting for some indication of an early occurrence of a body of Christians who can be identified as the True Church who were anti-Trinitarian. Take care. In Erie Scott PS You slander me by insinuating I am without reason and without integrity. You assume that a person who believes in the Trinity is ipso facto, then, without any reason or integrity. Again, an ad hominem attack on Trinitarians personally, not an exegesis of Scripture, or a proof of what is Tradition of God in an extra-biblical sense. Take care.

 

[Scotth1960]

I have a question

If Christ was God Himself on earth, when did this happen? From birth?

If so why did the Holy Spirit descend on Christ in bodily form at his Baptism, there would be no need.

That does not folllow. It is the Word of the Father, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, confirming, just as the Father is God and the Spirit, "the dove of God", is God, so also Christ, as God's beloved Son, is God. Christ always existed, and is God Himself in God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is One of the Trinity. The Son of God: God the Son. Christ is God before His birth, and was a man after His birth, was God become incarnate, become a man, the God-man, the Son of God, the Son of Man. In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[wakeup]

People have asked is the Trinity real? How can God be three people? When he said in Deut 6:4...The Lord is God, The Lord is One.
Well the word One refers to Gods uniqueness and not to his being Alone. As most of you know the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The English word "one" is translated into two words in the biblical Hebrew. The first is "YAHID" (unique, only son) gen.22:2
The second is "EHAD"(those united, becoming of one flesh) gen.2:24
...The Lord is God, the Lord is One. Translates and means that God is not solitary, even though He is unique. It suggests that God is united, or more than one person...


4 Hints in the Old Testament

1. Gen 1:26_ And God (singular) said, “Let US(Plural) make man in OUR (Plural) likeness…
2. Gen 3:22_ And the Lord God (singular) said” Behold, the man is become as on of US (plural) to know good and evil…
3. Gen 11:7_ Come let US (plural) go down, and there confound their language…
4. Isa 6:8_ Also I heard the of the Lord (singular) saying, “Whom shall I (singular) send and who will go for US (plural)?

God is Love… 1John 4:8 & 16. Before creation there was an eternity when God existed as Love. God could not have been Love if He was solitary…For who would He Love?

Truths of the Trinity in Scriptures

1. Gen 1:1_ In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
2. Heb 1:2_ Has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, BY WHOM HE MADE THE WORLD.
3. John 1:1-3; 14_ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. _ And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld the glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
4. Eph 4:30_ And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed to the day of redemption.
5. Acts 5:3-4_ But peter said “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to man, but to God.
6. Matt 1:23_ Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name IMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US.



Jesus could not have become human without the Holy Spirit. Matt. 1:18-20. Jesus had to pray to God. And God could not have created everything without his Son Jesus. Heb. 1:2.



I believe that the Trinity is real and by reading this I hope you do to. But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

-GODBLESS!!!-

we are created in the image of GOD: you are created in the image of GOD.
are you a trinity? are you 3 in 1?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

[quote=PneumaPsucheSoma;402291][/b]


I am awaiting for you to confess that you are really Sola Scriptura. Since you expect me to produce a Scripture that says persons. I can't. And you can't produce one that says "no persons". So all we can go by to interpret the NT is somebody's TRADITION (traditions), in the sense of both written and spoken oral traditions (as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Possible error in Tradition? Which traditions are spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? Which traditions after the NT was completed agree with the tradition of the NT. Can these traditions that are extra-biblical err? Where does 2 Thessalonians 2:15 point us? Which Christians after the NT was completed should we read? Clement? Ignatius? Polycarp?
What about them: weren't they Trinitarians? God bless you. Scott in Erie

No. I'm not Sola Scriptura.

No. Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius weren't Trinitarian.

Since you have no grasp of reality and no credibility or integrity, I will leave you to your double-standards and prove-the-negative irrationality. I've endured it long enough.

Your sense of reason is even more flawed than your doctrine, which is quite infuriating to those of us with reason and integrity.[/quote]


You continually use personal language about me, something I don't do about you. You continually make it personal.. I don't do that. You expect us to believe your doctrine, but leave you teaching half-defined at best. You also assume these early writers Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius aren't Trinitarian. That is your inference, based on what may be the fact that they didn't use the term "Trinity". That's an argument from silence. A man who never writes the word "Trinity" in his extant writings therefore doesn't believe in the Trinity. That's presuming too much. People don't necessarily reveal everything they really believe. You should know that! You continually delay revealing your Tradition, since you assume that Trinitarian Tradition is erroneous. I'm still waiting for some indication of an early occurrence of a body of Christians who can be identified as the True Church who were anti-Trinitarian. Take care. In Erie Scott PS You slander me by insinuating I am without reason and without integrity. You assume that a person who believes in the Trinity is ipso facto, then, without any reason or integrity. Again, an ad hominem attack on Trinitarians personally, not an exegesis of Scripture, or a proof of what is Tradition of God in an extra-biblical sense. Take care.


[/QUOTE]


Yes, it's personal at this point because of your personal irrational double standards and prove-the-negative mentality. And YOU are the one arguing from silence.

I've dealt with thousands of Trinitarians, and you stand alone as the most irrational of them all. Just move along. You have NO sense of objectivity.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

we are created in the image of GOD: you are created in the image of GOD.
are you a trinity? are you 3 in 1?

SO true! If you only knew what you just said...

 

[wakeup]

That does not folllow. It is the Word of the Father, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, confirming, just as the Father is God and the Spirit, "the dove of God", is God, so also Christ, as God's beloved Son, is God. Christ always existed, and is God Himself in God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is One of the Trinity. The Son of God: God the Son. Christ is God before His birth, and was a man after His birth, was God become incarnate, become a man, the God-man, the Son of God, the Son of Man. In Erie PA Scott H.

where is all this written in scripture? this is just a dream, that cunning men has
dreamed up,to confuse,because they are confused them selves.
1tim4:1. now the spirit speaks expressly,that in latter times some shall depart from
the faith,giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.
v.2. speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron:

wakeup.

 

[livingbygrace]

That does not folllow. It is the Word of the Father, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, confirming, just as the Father is God and the Spirit, "the dove of God", is God, so also Christ, as God's beloved Son, is God. Christ always existed, and is God Himself in God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is One of the Trinity. The Son of God: God the Son. Christ is God before His birth, and was a man after His birth, was God become incarnate, become a man, the God-man, the Son of God, the Son of Man. In Erie PA Scott H.

This does not answer the question. Don't you find it strange that Christ did not start his public ministry until the Spirit had descended on him in bodily form?
After this the Bible says he lived in the power of the Spirit, and the miracles he performed were in the power of the spirit

 

[Scotth1960]

I am awaiting for you to confess that you are really Sola Scriptura. Since you expect me to produce a Scripture that says persons. I can't. And you can't produce one that says "no persons". So all we can go by to interpret the NT is somebody's TRADITION (traditions), in the sense of both written and spoken oral traditions (as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Possible error in Tradition? Which traditions are spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? Which traditions after the NT was completed agree with the tradition of the NT. Can these traditions that are extra-biblical err? Where does 2 Thessalonians 2:15 point us? Which Christians after the NT was completed should we read? Clement? Ignatius? Polycarp?
What about them: weren't they Trinitarians? God bless you. Scott in Erie

You keep going by a sola Scriptura presupposition. Don't you understand that neither the word "persons" nor the idea that "no persons" is in Scripture. I infer the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons. You infer that they are not. My belief comes from identifiable Tradition. It's public, and Greek. Which language was ever used to defend your "Oneness is closer to truth" doctrine. Let's start there. What is Oneness. And why is it closer to the truth than Trinity doctrine?
Take care.
Scott in Erie

[/quote]

Dear pneumapsuchesoma: I still don't understand how you say Christ is a person, but there is not a Trinity of three persons? Why only one person, Christ. How can a person be a Son of someone who is not a person? Are you confusing person with man? Of course, God is not three men. Take care. In Erie Scott

 

[Scotth1960]

This does not answer the question. Don't you find it strange that Christ did not start his public ministry until the Spirit had descended on him in bodily form?
After this the Bible says he lived in the power of the Spirit, and the miracles he performed were in the power of the spirit

That is not strange. Everything Christ does, He does in co-operation with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. God's ways are not our ways, and our thoughts are not God's thoughts. There is a transcendant God, and His thoughts are above our limited thoughts. Take care.

 

[Consumed]

omnipresent?????? nothing is impossible with God
3 are 1 / 1 are 3

love how paul says "nothing can seperate us from the love of God"

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Dear pneumapsuchesoma: I still don't understand how you say Christ is a person, but there is not a Trinity of three persons? Why only one person, Christ. How can a person be a Son of someone who is not a person? Are you confusing person with man? Of course, God is not three men. Take care. In Erie Scott

You may not have understood me. Because of your irrational double-standards, absurd prove-the-negative mentality, and ridiculous view that "person"-exclusion is inference because "person"-inclusion is inference... I'm not going to engage you in conversation.

I will converse with those who are rational with a sense of integrity.

 

[gospelofchrist]

God is three in ONE. and no theyre not angels because God said that we were over angels. GOD is three just as we are three... We as human have flesh, spirit, and soul.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

God is three in ONE.

Agreed. But not three "persons".

and no theyre not angels because God said that we were over angels.

No, God is not angels. That would be absurd.

GOD is three just as we are three...

We aren't three persons. We are three constituent parts of one person. All "threeness" isn't Trinity by default.

We as human have flesh, spirit, and soul.

If you only knew what you just said...

 

[livingbygrace]

I am sure I will get shot down in flames for my simple belief in this subject. But here goes anyway

But about the son he(the Father) says
Your thorone O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be a sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions by annointing you with the oil of joy.
Heb 1:8&9

That doesn't sound like God is talking about himself to me.

So to my simplistic mind. Christ is not the one true God Himself as he stated. BUT and this is a very big but the fulness of the Godhead does bodily rest in the person of Christ
Just as the Holy Spirit descended on Christ in bodily form at his Baptism

Now I wonder if many believe that because the fulness of the Godhead bodily rests in Christ and he therefore has the very nature of God, he must therefore be God Himself. I disagree.

And I do wonder if when you take away all the theology this is not what it comes down to.

Christ is fully yielded to the will of his Father and is of one heart and mind with his Father. He is undoubtedly a reflection of who his Father is, and he is the word of God.
You can say God Himself is in Christ, but you cannot say Christ is God Himself

But like it or not. Once you jump to say therefore Christ is God Himself you HAVE to throw out or ignore some of the plainest scripture on this subject in the Bible.

And what would that say for the Bible if much of its plainest statements cannot be relied on

Do we have a cryptic or misleading Bible written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I do not believe we do

I doubt there is that much difference between how I see Christ and a Trinitarian does concerning the person and nature of who he is, but they seem to me to be hung up on words. And by doing so miss out on what is most important in our faith

Because if a person has to say Christ is God Himself to have eternal life, the Bible is discredited. But it seems to me that would be preferable to some than looking away from the teaching of man

My faith is in the word of God, not the teaching of man

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am sure I will get shot down in flames for my simple belief in this subject. But here goes anyway

But about the son he(the Father) says
Your thorone O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be a sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions by annointing you with the oil of joy.
Heb 1:8&9

That doesn't sound like God is talking about himself to me.

So to my simplistic mind. Christ is not the one true God Himself as he stated. BUT and this is a very big but the fulness of the Godhead does bodily rest in the person of Christ
Just as the Holy Spirit descended on Christ in bodily form at his Baptism

Now I wonder if many believe that because the fulness of the Godhead bodily rests in Christ and he therefore has the very nature of God, he must therefore be God Himself. I disagree.

And I do wonder if when you take away all the theology this is not what it comes down to.

Christ is fully yielded to the will of his Father and is of one heart and mind with his Father. He is undoubtedly a reflection of who his Father is, and he is the word of God.
You can say God Himself is in Christ, but you cannot say Christ is God Himself

But like it or not. Once you jump to say therefore Christ is God Himself you HAVE to throw out or ignore some of the plainest scripture on this subject in the Bible.

And what would that say for the Bible if much of its plainest statements cannot be relied on

Do we have a cryptic or misleading Bible written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I do not believe we do

I doubt there is that much difference between how I see Christ and a Trinitarian does concerning the person and nature of who he is, but they seem to me to be hung up on words. And by doing so miss out on what is most important in our faith

Because if a person has to say Christ is God Himself to have eternal life, the Bible is discredited. But it seems to me that would be preferable to some than looking away from the teaching of man

My faith is in the word of God, not the teaching of man

VERY close to the truth. Trinis will disagree, though.

 

[livingbygrace]

VERY close to the truth. Trinis will disagree, though.

Well as most Trinitarians think I have no eternal life and am a heretic I'm not that worrried if they disagree with me. But I would be interested to know how you see it

If we are very close in our belief on this subject, where is the difference?

 

[Scotth1960]

No. I'm not Sola Scriptura.

No. Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius weren't Trinitarian.

[/SIZE]

Since you have no grasp of reality and no credibility or

integrity, I will leave you to your double-standards and prove-

the-negative irrationality. I've endured it long enough.

Your sense of reason is even more flawed than your doctrine,

which is quite infuriating to those of us with reason and

integrity.

You continually use personal language about me, something I

don't do about you. You continually make it personal.. I don't

do that. You expect us to believe your doctrine, but leave you

teaching half-defined at best. You also assume these early

writers Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius aren't Trinitarian.

That is your inference, based on what may be the fact that

they didn't use the term "Trinity". That's an argument from

silence. A man who never writes the word "Trinity" in his

extant writings therefore doesn't believe in the Trinity. That's

presuming too much. People don't necessarily reveal

everything they really believe. You should know that! You

continually delay revealing your Tradition, since you assume

that Trinitarian Tradition is erroneous. I'm still waiting for

some indication of an early occurrence of a body of Christians

who can be identified as the True Church who were

anti-Trinitarian. Take care. In Erie Scott PS You slander me

by insinuating I am without reason and without integrity. You

assume that a person who believes in the Trinity is ipso facto,

then, without any reason or integrity. Again, an ad hominem

attack on Trinitarians personally, not an exegesis of

Scripture, or a proof of what is Tradition of God in an extra-

biblical sense. Take care.


[/quote]


Yes, it's personal at this point because of your personal irrational

double standards and prove-the-negative mentality. And YOU are the

one arguing from silence.

I've dealt with thousands of Trinitarians, and you stand alone as the

most irrational of them all. Just move along. You have NO sense of

objectivity.[/quote]


You already made up your mind before-the-fact of discussion

that Trinity belief is intrinsically irrational. So if follows

logically from your initial slander of the Trinity as "gorilla glue

people" that you think that people who believe in the Trinity

are all irrational brutes and mere anti-intellectual gorillas.

Again, you don't come up with any thing positive, you just

attack and attack and slander and curse the light that is there

in the Scriptures, if only you would be willing to see the light.

You once saw the light, and believed in Trinity. But if you

really understood the Trinity belief you believed in, you would

not have fallen away from the true faith. Maybe you were

like me, who once believed in Filioque error: mere Trinity

belief is not enough: one must believe in a

non-Filioque Trinity, as FIlioque is a sin against the pure

doctrine of the All-Holy Trinity. Take care. But I think you

are exaggerating. You couldn't possibly have had time to

deal with thousands of Trinitarians. And you don't take the

Creed of 381 AD seriously. That is your basic, anti-biblical

error. In Erie PA Scott H.