1+1+1=ONE

[Scotth1960]

[quote=Tigger2;411600]I think the trinity actually began with Nimrod & his momma, wifey didn't it??[/quote]
That is pagan nonsense. To deny the Trinity is to deny the Scriptures. To criticize God is unwise. To criticize the Trinity is heretical. Take care. In Erie Scott

 

[stone]

there is only 1 God. in three different offices.st.John 1v1. people r not born again say all soughts.no man can call Jesus d Christ accept by d holy ghost.

 

[Tigger2]

[quote=Tigger2;411600]I think the trinity actually began with Nimrod & his momma, wifey didn't it??

That is pagan nonsense. To deny the Trinity is to deny the Scriptures. To criticize God is unwise. To criticize the Trinity is heretical. Take care. In Erie Scott
[/quote]

That's a fact it is Pagan Nonsense & that is where it began. Enjoy your blindness given by your Holy Church. I'll try sticking to God's word, prayer & inspiration of The Holy Spirit.

 

[1Covenant]

I have found that those that deny the "traditional" view of the Trinity, such as oneness folks, often do damage to the unity of God in the self sacrifice of God for the atonement of man and the propitiation of His own wrath.

Let me explain. I don't wish to put anyone in a box or to pick on one group over another, but to simply speak out of the majority of my experiences, most oneness folks, I've spoken with, relay a theology that is uncomfortable with the complete mysterious union of God and Man in Christ. In so doing, they take the many experiences of Jesus' interaction with the Father and explain what is going on in these instances by dividing the person of Christ in two (the flesh or will and the spirit). They explain their actions with the scripture that God is Spirit. Ultimately they tend to reject that it was God that died on the cross.
Instead they will say something like:

1. Only His flesh died on the cross.

Once they say this they may say things such as:

1. That God raises his flesh again to be united to it again, then he leaves it again as the Holy Spirit
2. God shares his throne with a created being that is not totally God nor completely united to Him (as evidenced by the death on the cross).
3. Or they deny the physical resurrection of the body by making the resurrection a spiritual resurrection only, thus avoiding the messy resurrected flesh God isn't just spirit anymore.

Concerning Christ, if they realize the problem of denying the physical resurrection then in the end they seem to create a duality to explain it and that duality is not even declared to be of one nature but rather a resurrected flesh submitting to God, the Spirit, that can have the same interaction with Him as he did on the earth (i.e. will and spirit). As already mentioned, once you get to the discussion of heaven there is a confusing division in oneness between the resurrected body of Jesus, the will of the body they distinguished in the earthly ministry of Jesus (who prayed to the father) and God who is Spirit.
Ultimately this theology seems to imply that God simply made a creature to do His will and die, while He, Himself, avoided self-sacrifice for his creation and if that is the case it does harm to the biblical view and dare I say the traditional opinion of the biblical view of the atonement as well.

I am open to being wrong about what oneness believe but there must be a complete union of God/man in the atoning death of Christ Jesus. Since the early 1900s when the oneness movement began in earnest within divisions among some pentecostal denominations there have been a whole array of theological variations that have multiplied. Therefore there are some that hold to better biblical theology than others and to which I have been close to. However, everyone has all their favorite scriptures and one person interprets it this way and another interprets it a different way, and in the end, if one is not careful, one concludes its all ok - it's just minor stuff. However, in all the conversations that I have observed and have partaken in, this one theme of God's death on the cross seems to very nicely define the true important difference between Trinitarian and other theologies like Oneness.

I would end there but likely that would be inadequate as I think the atonement is an important issue in the discussion...The biblical atonement is made by an eternal sacrifice because the offense was made by finite man against the eternal God. It is not on man's side that the offense is valued but on God's side, "the offended." Man, upon whom the debt lay, is incapable of repaying the infinite harm upon God. Yet it was man that had to pay the debt. This is the hopelessness of our estate without God's condescension. This is the chasm that man could not cross, but praise God, that God crossed it in uniting himself to man and dying to quench His own eternal wrath. As the words of Charles Wesley's hymn beautifully puts it...Can it be that I should gain an interest in the savior's blood?...Amazing love...that thou my God shouldst die for me...Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies...
We often make very little of our sin (as though we define its offensiveness), likewise making very little of God's holiness and goodness, and thereby failing to love much because we have been forgiven so little.

While not meaning to start a whole other discussion but going to the above point, this theology of the atonement is also what helps make sense of the Bible's language of the eternal nature of a tormenting Hell. The sin against the eternal nature of God is judged eternally. The guilty are not wiped away and forgotten as though the eternal holiness of God were likewise fleeting. Hell and Heaven stand as eternal witnesses. Behold! this is the extreme goodness and the severity of our God...He poured himself out to meet his own demand for all who believe in Him and so Christ stands as the eternal fountainhead of the compassionate saving grace of our God as he also stands as the holy justice of God's eternal condemnation of man's rebellion and rejection of Christ.

In the theology of the Trinity, there is opportunity to understand how to handle the passages such as God is Spirit, without doing damage to the complete union of God and Man in Christ Jesus and the eternal aspect of the atoning death on the cross.

I know that there are many in here that are vastly more skilled than I, including those that disagree with me and perhaps I should follow the example of athanasius who destroyed one of his own works because he said it was not fitting that men should read his vain bablings; but Alas, I am not even that spiritual. So, I conclude, as humbly as can be, by pressing the submit button and trusting that God who sees all and does what He wills, will make use of my vain bablings.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think what alot of people fail to realize is that what Christ did was not just for man's benefit. It was also for the benefit of the angelic realm.

Scripture tells us they the manifold wisdom of God, which was a mystery, was made known to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places. This could only means angels. They watched to see what God was going to do to save mankind.

Scripture also tells us that Christ disarmed the rulers an authorities triumphing over them. This is Satan and all the angels who fell with him who have been preaching their lie to mankind since Satan convinced adam and eve to sin. There lie? God is not a loving God.

While on Earth. Jesus could not have had any of his "diety"

1. If he had his diety, he would know all things and not be in need of teaching. Yet we are told he spent his life up to his ministry learning about his father. and the things of God

2. As diety, Christ would not need to be conforted by Angels. For God can not feel pain nor does God need comforted

3. As diety, God would not need the HS to perform the miracles through him, For God is able to do these things by himself

4. As diety, God could not die.

5. As diety, Jesus could never be tempted for God can not be tempted. If Jesus was unable to be tempted, God lied when he said he was tempted in all areas as we are.

6. As diety, Jesus could never even have the remote possibility of committing any sin, Which would have made his sacrifice null and void. If Jesus was totally unable to sin, The very angels he is said to disarmed would have been armed, Called Jesus sacrifice a farce, because one who could never even commit a crime for which they are dieing for. Can not die in the place of people who did sin. Not to mention, the angels who watched would have questions Gods love. What really did he do? He could never sin anyway, It was not really fair. and did not really show Gods love, God fooled us all. In order for Jesus sacrifice to be real, he would have had to have the ability to sin.

then we have the first adam and the second adam.

the first was able to not sin, but also able to sin, which he did

the second adam would then have had the same abilities, able to not sin, and able to sin. and then chose to follow God in all areas, being with out sin, unlike the first adam.

then there is the thing Jesus had to be diety in order to take the eternal punishment for all mankind. I do not believe this either.

1. God did not say the penalty of sin is eternal death, He said it is death

2. Those who suffer "eternal death" do so because they rejected Christ. Not because they sinned.

3. Jesus had the unique experience of having an eternal relationship with the father non of us can comprehend. Even at birth he experienced the father like non of us have ever experienced him. We can not comprehend the pain which would be caused by God turning his back on us, Because even if we are saved, we have never experienced the father as Jesus has, and will not until we get to heaven. So we can not comprehend what Jesus experience when he hung on the cross, and the Father and spirit "turned their backs" on him

Remember, Jesus took a beating no ordinary man (probably no man) would have lived through. Yet he did not cry out once in pain. Yet there came a moment on the cross. When Jesus cried out (literally screamed) in pain, My God, My God why has thou forsaken me. I bet if you took all the pain all mankind has suffered from adam until the last man and put it together. this did not come close to the pain Jesus felt when the father left him for three hours. This is what Jesus did for us.

This is what disarmed satan. Satans lie that God is not loving is destroyed, it has no power. Because who can deny God is not loving if he did this for his Enemy (us) Also. No angel who did not follow satan can ever question the love of God again. (there will never be a rebellion in heaven again) And no man who stands before Christ on judgment day can have an excuse. Knowing then that what God did for us is real, and they passed his grace gift up.

 

[Scotth1960]

That is pagan nonsense. To deny the Trinity is to deny the Scriptures. To criticize God is

unwise. To criticize the Trinity is heretical. Take care. In Erie Scott

That's a fact it is Pagan Nonsense & that is

where it began. Enjoy your blindness given by

your Holy Church. I'll try sticking to God's word,

prayer & inspiration of The Holy Spirit.[/quote]


You are following your own private

interpretation of God's Word (2 Peter 3:16),

not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John

16:13). Without a knowledge of Church history,

you assume there was no correct interpretation

of the Bible before the day you were born.

What about 2000 years of Greek exegesis of

the Greek NT by Greek Orthodox Christians? If

they weren't the Church, there was no Church

of Christ on earth, and Christ is a deceiver.

Thus, your Protestant-Reformation inspired

private interpretation of the Scripture, which

rejects the Trinity that even Martin Luther still

accepted, is based on your own false "tradition

of men." You get your doctrine from yourself,

not from the Holy Spirit. Thus you grasp at

straws and state that the Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit of Matthew 28:19, which is HOLY

SCRIPTURE and JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF

TALKING is the "pagan invention of Nimrod and

his wife." Perhaps you will look up in your KJV

Strong's exhaustive concordance for the verse

in Matthew 28:19 where the words "Nimrod"

and "wife" are listed? Go figure for blasphemy

against God the Holy Trinity. You are causing

trouble for yourself for your lack of true belief

about who God is. Even the worst of sinners

can understand that God is Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Tigger2]

You only read what you want to & are blind to what I truly say. I believe in God the Father. I believe in His Son Lord Jesus Christ, who is my salvation & the Salvation of the entire world. I also believe the Holy spirit is God, just not a person like you do. When you say The Holy Spirit is a person you belittle God to no end. How can you even think of them being so minuscule as to just be ( a person )?
Let me make this real simple for you ok. Don't twist my words like your church does scripture. May God have mercy on you!!
Show me anywhere The Father or the Son speak to the Holy Spirit or visa versa. They both speak to each other many times.
Why do Paul's introductions always say; Grace to you & peace from God The Father & our Lord Jesus Christ, but never mention the Holy Spirit? Simple: because it's not another person, it is the awesome power of God!!!

 

[Scotth1960]

You only read what you want to & are blind to what

I truly say. I believe in God the Father. I believe in His Son Lord Jesus Christ,

who is my salvation & the Salvation of the entire world. I also believe the

Holy spirit is God, just not a person like you do. When you say The Holy Spirit

is a person you belittle God to no end. How can you even think of them being

so minuscule as to just be ( a person )?


Let me make this real simple for you ok. Don't twist my words like your church

does scripture. May God have mercy on you!!


Show me anywhere The Father or the Son speak to the Holy Spirit or visa versa. They both speak to each other many times.

Why do Paul's introductions always say; Grace to you & peace from God The

Father & our Lord Jesus Christ, but never mention the Holy Spirit? Simple:

because it's not another person, it is the awesome power of God!!!

Friend, First of all, The Holy Spirit is not an "it". Second of all, the Holy

Spirit is called God in Acts 5. Thirdly, to deny that the Holy Spirit is God

and a "He" and not an "it" and that He is a person is an ancient heresy

called Macedonianism. (To the best of my recollection).

The idea of the Holy Spirit as the mere, impersonal "power of God" is the

heretical error and heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) sect

and of the former Worldwide Church of God of Herbert W. Armstrong

(ARMSTRONGISM).

Dear friend, I am sorry if I can't see what you are really saying. But I don't

understand how you can believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one

God, but that they are not 3 persons. If they are not three distinct persons,

then they all the same person, and they are confused with each other into

just one person, which is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism. See: GOOGLE

reference Wikipedia under SABELLIANISM. God bless you, dear friend.

As it is, the church is not "my church". The church is the church, and does

not twist Scripture. I as an individual may have failed in the past and twisted


Scripture. May God prevent me from doing that any more.


The real Church cannot twist Scripture: It must remain unchangeable

(according to Matt. 16:18).

Dear friend, I do not "belittle God to no end" by saying that the Holy Spirit is

a person. That is a mischaracterization of our faith in one God in three

persons.


It is good that you believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The limitation of your thought is an apparent phobia of the word "persons"

when it comes to God. What else are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but three

Divine Persons?

It is not good if you deny that the Holy Spirit is God.

Consider the following:

"Jesus Christ, our Lord and God and Savior, is the "way, the TRUTH, and the

life," consequently He can teach nothing but truth. It should be obvious, then,

that any religious organization which teaches false doctrine in any matter,

great or small, does not speak for Christ. He cannot say to any such

organization of men as He said to the founders of His Church, "Who hears

you, hears me." He can approve only of that organization which teaches the

exact truth and nothing but the truth.

"The fact of the 200 clashing denominations [in the name of Christ and

Christianity in America] can only mean one of two things; either they are all

wrong, or one is right and the rest wrong. To accept the first conclusion

would, of course, designate Christ as a deceiver and a false prophet, hence

the second conclusion must be right.

"I attained to the sure knowledge, therefore, that of the many opposing

faiths, one and only one must be the true faith. My problem was to find the

right one.

"My examination of various Protestant sects convinced me that their

adherents were all sincere, and since I knew that their differences sprang

from the fact that they all interpreted the Bible in a different manner, I finally

decided that private interpretation of the Bible alone, without any reference

to the traditions of the ancient Church, cannot lead to all truth. It became

increasingly evident to me that so long as the "Bible only" doctrine is adhered

to, never until the end of the world will the Protestants agree among

themselves. Yet Christ demands unity.

"After much thought on the subject, I finally came to understand the

following truths. The Bible taken by itself, divorced from all history, and

tradition is a difficult book to understand. Men of honesty and sincerity

deduce radically divergent beliefs and doctrines from the same book. But it is

also clear that the tastes and fancies of the individual in a large part

determine what he will find in the Bible. In other words one is very likely to

find what he wants to find. The individual may not be conscious of any

dishonesty in his interpretations, but his own inhibitions, his own training and

traditions as to right and wrong, are sure to color somewhat his

interpretations, causing him to "spiritualize" certain "hard sayings," where

the literal meaning conflicts with his own tastes, or to insist on a literal

understanding of the text which happens to appeal to him. It cannot be

disputed, then, that the Christian religion as established by the "Bible only"

method, in the last analysis becomes largely a matter of personal taste and

fancy.

"It is manifest that some objective authority is needed which transcends the

subjectivism of individual interpretation. Moreover, God, who is both

omniscient and just, could not demand unity of us and at the same time LIMIT

His instructions to a book upon which seekers in good faith cannot possibly

agree. The Holy Book is indeed infallible, but without an infallible interpreter,

its value is only relative and problematical. Christianity, however, if it be from

God, must teach truths which are not relative or problematical, but absolute

and sure. Hence reason itself demands the existence of an objective witness

and authority capable of a sure interpretation of the Bible and of everything

else which any honest seeker after truth needs to know" (see for example:

TO THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. From

Cincinnati, Ohio, 1949 AD. by Mr. Chrysostomos H. Stratman. (1949).

Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery. q.v.).

God bless you. AMEN.

God have mercy on us; AMEN AND AMEN.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Friday, April 1, 2011 AD (n.c. date).

 

[Scotth1960]

You only read what you want to & are blind to what I

truly say. I believe in God the Father. I believe in His Son Lord Jesus

Christ, who is my salvation & the Salvation of the entire world. I also

believe the Holy spirit is God, just not a person like you do. When you

say The Holy Spirit is a person you belittle God to no end. How can you

even think of them being so minuscule as to just be ( a person )?

Let me make this real simple for you ok. Don't twist my words like your

church does scripture. May God have mercy on you!!

Show me anywhere The Father or the Son speak to the Holy Spirit or

visa versa. They both speak to each other many times.


Why do Paul's introductions always say; Grace to you & peace from

God The Father & our Lord Jesus Christ, but never mention the Holy

Spirit? Simple: because it's not another person, it is the awesome

power of God!!!

[/quote]Friend Tigger2, Are you trying to make Saint Paul in

his introductions disagree with our LORD GOD and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who

says "Father, Son AND Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19? Just because St. Paul

only mentions the Father and the Son Jesus Christ in some verses, doesn't

mean St. Paul doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit. All of his writings are inspired

by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was said by Christ not to speak of Himself,

but to lead people to God the Father by leading them to Jesus Christ the

LORD. The Spirit's role is to give glory to Jesus Christ the Son of God to the

glory of God the Father. Hence, St. Paul mentions the Father and the Son only,

because the Spirit doesn't give glory to Himself, but to the Father and the

Son together. The Spirit, like the Son, is humble. The Son and the Spirit give

all their glory to the Father, but the Son asks the Father to glorify Him, so

that the Father may be glorified. The Son's glorification is a part of the

glorification of the Father of the Son. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You only read what you want to & are blind to what I truly say. I believe in God the Father. I believe in His Son Lord Jesus Christ, who is my salvation & the Salvation of the entire world. I also believe the Holy spirit is God, just not a person like you do. When you say The Holy Spirit is a person you belittle God to no end. How can you even think of them being so minuscule as to just be ( a person )?
Let me make this real simple for you ok. Don't twist my words like your church does scripture. May God have mercy on you!!
Show me anywhere The Father or the Son speak to the Holy Spirit or visa versa. They both speak to each other many times.
Why do Paul's introductions always say; Grace to you & peace from God The Father & our Lord Jesus Christ, but never mention the Holy Spirit? Simple: because it's not another person, it is the awesome power of God!!!

Shhhhh, Tig... Trinis think there'll be three Theoanthropi sitting around a celestial card table playing Canasta for eternity. Don't bust their bubble. :-D

 

[endofallfears]

Definition time.

When either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, is refered to as a person, they are not being refered to as a human being. It is meant as individual personhood, able to have individuality, self-awareness, and consciousness. To define their existence as Persons does not diminish them, but gives us a faint glimpse of understanding them, while at the same time give awe to the mystery of how the three can be one.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Definition time.

When either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, is refered to as a person, they are not being refered to as a human being. It is meant as individual personhood, able to have individuality, self-awareness, and consciousness. To define their existence as Persons does not diminish them, but gives us a faint glimpse of understanding them, while at the same time give awe to the mystery of how the three can be one.

I can't speak for others, but I well understand what is meant by Trinitarian theology since I was in Trinitarian Pastoral ministry for 12 years after being raised and educated as a Trini. In truth, F-S-HS aren't three discrete self-sentient centers of consciousness conjoined as one. It's a philoso-Gnostic derived construct that was used to formulate this doctrine of man.

Regardless what the term means, it's extra-biblical. It isn't part of the written record of God's Divinely-expressed Logos. And it presents a concept that divides God into three minds-wills. A word (person-s) is only "sharp" enough to divide-asunder to its own self (person-s). THE word pierces to the dividing*asunder of soul-spirit, joints-marrow. The Word speaks the word (Rev. 19:15).

The Holy Spirit doesn't have a mind (nous) or will. The mind-will are soul faculties, which the Father demonstrates. The Holy Spirit demonstrates functional spirit faculties of conscience, intuition, and communion. During the Incarnation, the Son had a rational soul with a mind-will. The pre-existent Word did not, and wasn't pre-existent as a separate "person" -hood or -ality.

God spoke the Word as the eternal substance of Himself to be personified in the temporal within flesh. God didn't speak forth another God-"person"; God didn't speak AS another God-"person"; God didn't speak THROUGH another God-"person". God spoke the singular Divine substance (hupostasis) of Himself... His OWN self... into flesh. His OWN Word became flesh. That Word divided*asunder His OWN Spirit from His OWN Soul so that He might indwell us by His Spirit.

God... His OWN Word... and His OWN Spirit. NOT three extra-biblically-conceptualized separate "persons". God's Soul/The Father is well pleased in the Son (Matt. 12:18, 2Pet. 1:17). God is Spirit-Soul-Body (embodiment) of One Divinity (Pneuma-Psuche-Soma of Heis Theotes). G

 

[Scotth1960]

I think what alot of people fail to realize is that what Christ did was not just for man's benefit. It was also for the benefit of the angelic realm.

Scripture tells us they the manifold wisdom of God, which was a mystery, was made known to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places. This could only means angels. They watched to see what God was going to do to save mankind.

Scripture also tells us that Christ disarmed the rulers an authorities triumphing over them. This is Satan and all the angels who fell with him who have been preaching their lie to mankind since Satan convinced adam and eve to sin. There lie? God is not a loving God.


Dear Eternally Grateful: Good teaching. The teaching of Calvinism pits God's sovereignty over God's love, with God's sovereignty triumphing over God's mercy (love). And so, God is said to predestine some people to hell (eternal death: WCF Westminsiter Confession of Faith), and God makes some people sin, so He can damn them. At least some Calvinists teach that God is the cause of everything, and if He is, then He is the cause of sin. But then the Calvinists try and backtrack and have it both ways, and say that God is not the author (cause) of sin; yet, then they say He is the cause of everything that happens. If that's so, then He must be the cause of sin, for sin happens. Take care. God is love. Calvinism is false (heresy). Take care. God bless and save us. God wants all to come to repentance and be saved (2 Peter 3:9). That's a verse that speaks against Calvinism. God is sovereign, and He is also love. The two work together, sovereignty and love, in God. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington



While on Earth. Jesus could not have had any of his "diety"

1. If he had his diety, he would know all things and not be in need of teaching. Yet we are told he spent his life up to his ministry learning about his father. and the things of God

2. As diety, Christ would not need to be conforted by Angels. For God can not feel pain nor does God need comforted

3. As diety, God would not need the HS to perform the miracles through him, For God is able to do these things by himself

4. As diety, God could not die.

5. As diety, Jesus could never be tempted for God can not be tempted. If Jesus was unable to be tempted, God lied when he said he was tempted in all areas as we are.

6. As diety, Jesus could never even have the remote possibility of committing any sin, Which would have made his sacrifice null and void. If Jesus was totally unable to sin, The very angels he is said to disarmed would have been armed, Called Jesus sacrifice a farce, because one who could never even commit a crime for which they are dieing for. Can not die in the place of people who did sin. Not to mention, the angels who watched would have questions Gods love. What really did he do? He could never sin anyway, It was not really fair. and did not really show Gods love, God fooled us all. In order for Jesus sacrifice to be real, he would have had to have the ability to sin.

then we have the first adam and the second adam.

the first was able to not sin, but also able to sin, which he did

the second adam would then have had the same abilities, able to not sin, and able to sin. and then chose to follow God in all areas, being with out sin, unlike the first adam.

then there is the thing Jesus had to be diety in order to take the eternal punishment for all mankind. I do not believe this either.

1. God did not say the penalty of sin is eternal death, He said it is death

2. Those who suffer "eternal death" do so because they rejected Christ. Not because they sinned.

3. Jesus had the unique experience of having an eternal relationship with the father non of us can comprehend. Even at birth he experienced the father like non of us have ever experienced him. We can not comprehend the pain which would be caused by God turning his back on us, Because even if we are saved, we have never experienced the father as Jesus has, and will not until we get to heaven. So we can not comprehend what Jesus experience when he hung on the cross, and the Father and spirit "turned their backs" on him

Remember, Jesus took a beating no ordinary man (probably no man) would have lived through. Yet he did not cry out once in pain. Yet there came a moment on the cross. When Jesus cried out (literally screamed) in pain, My God, My God why has thou forsaken me. I bet if you took all the pain all mankind has suffered from adam until the last man and put it together. this did not come close to the pain Jesus felt when the father left him for three hours. This is what Jesus did for us.

This is what disarmed satan. Satans lie that God is not loving is destroyed, it has no power. Because who can deny God is not loving if he did this for his Enemy (us) Also. No angel who did not follow satan can ever question the love of God again. (there will never be a rebellion in heaven again) And no man who stands before Christ on judgment day can have an excuse. Knowing then that what God did for us is real, and they passed his grace gift up.

 

[endofallfears]

One cannot accuse a doctrine of being a philoso-gnostic construct, and then use a philoso-gnostic construct to explain a doctrine. Sophistric semantics is not an acceptable method of scriptural interpretation.

"In truth, F-S-HS aren't three discrete self-sentient centers of consciousness conjoined as one." This is not the doctrine of the trinity. Nor is "And it presents a concept that divides God into three minds-wills." In a way human beings cannot comprehend, there is one God who is also three persons. Not manifestations, extensions, mind-will existential constructs, or created beings. They are spoken of in scripture AS God. They speak of, and address each other as persons, not as aspects or extensions of one.

The limitations you place on the Spirit or the Word a extra-biblical, using definitions that fit a "Oneness Model" do not conform to the facts of plain reading of Scripture. "Modeling" is a means of isolationism by which facts are filtered to fit the model, instead of shaping the model to fit the facts, not to mention redefinition of terms and setting up the "strawman" arguments.

I hope you have a better "Oneness" argument then the one you presented.

 

[endofallfears]

Let's take a look at these statements.

While on Earth. Jesus could not have had any of his "diety"

1. If he had his diety, he would know all things and not be in need of teaching. Yet we are told he spent his life up to his ministry learning about his father. and the things of God

We are told in his youth He placed himself in submission to his parents, in all things he conducted himself as a man. He did not need to be taught, but he submitted himself as a good son.

2. As diety, Christ would not need to be conforted by Angels. For God can not feel pain nor does God need comforted

The body of Christ, while free of sin, still felt pain, hunger, thirst, because He was fully God and FULLY man.

3. As diety, God would not need the HS to perform the miracles through him, For God is able to do these things by himself

Scripture is plain that Jesus had submitted Himself, by choice, to the Father, which meant following the leading of the Holy Ghost.

4. As diety, God could not die.

The flesh is what died, not the spirit.

5. As diety, Jesus could never be tempted for God can not be tempted. If Jesus was unable to be tempted, God lied when he said he was tempted in all areas as we are.

Temptation falls into two areas; the offer, and the desire. Satan tempted Jesus in that he made the offer. Jesus was not tempted in that he desired what was offered by Satan.

6. As diety, Jesus could never even have the remote possibility of committing any sin, Which would have made his sacrifice null and void. If Jesus was totally unable to sin, The very angels he is said to disarmed would have been armed, Called Jesus sacrifice a farce, because one who could never even commit a crime for which they are dieing for. Can not die in the place of people who did sin. Not to mention, the angels who watched would have questions Gods love. What really did he do? He could never sin anyway, It was not really fair. and did not really show Gods love, God fooled us all. In order for Jesus sacrifice to be real, he would have had to have the ability to sin.

There's nothing in Scripture that teaches the sacrifice must have the ability to sin. It was the sinless life Jesus lived that demonstrated His diety, and only diety could pay the price for the sin of mankind, past, present, and future.

then we have the first adam and the second adam.

the first was able to not sin, but also able to sin, which he did

the second adam would then have had the same abilities, able to not sin, and able to sin. and then chose to follow God in all areas, being with out sin, unlike the first adam.

Jesus was not meant to be a duplicate of Adam, precisely because the first Adam was inadequate to the task. It's only in the sense that as the totality of sin came to mankind through one, so should forgiveness come to mankind through the other.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One cannot accuse a doctrine of being a philoso-gnostic construct, and then use a philoso-gnostic construct to explain a doctrine. Sophistric semantics is not an acceptable method of scriptural interpretation.

"In truth, F-S-HS aren't three discrete self-sentient centers of consciousness conjoined as one." This is not the doctrine of the trinity. Nor is "And it presents a concept that divides God into three minds-wills." In a way human beings cannot comprehend, there is one God who is also three persons. Not manifestations, extensions, mind-will existential constructs, or created beings. They are spoken of in scripture AS God. They speak of, and address each other as persons, not as aspects or extensions of one.

The limitations you place on the Spirit or the Word a extra-biblical, using definitions that fit a "Oneness Model" do not conform to the facts of plain reading of Scripture. "Modeling" is a means of isolationism by which facts are filtered to fit the model, instead of shaping the model to fit the facts, not to mention redefinition of terms and setting up the "strawman" arguments.

I hope you have a better "Oneness" argument then the one you presented.

I'm not Oneness. And Trinitarians have NO model based on scripture. "Persons" is wholly extra-biblical. And I was being descriptive as a concession, not defining as Trinity does. But I'll gladly harden it up. Trinity is unbiblical. Prove God is three "persons".

No strawmen. No semantics. No redefining. No rhetoric. Simply show God as three "persons". Especially show interactive discourse between Father and Holy Spirit and Son and Holy Spirit. Specifically show three "persons" according to Trinity doctrinal formulation in the Creeds. Show it from Scripture.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One cannot accuse a doctrine of being a philoso-gnostic construct, and then use a philoso-gnostic construct to explain a doctrine. Sophistric semantics is not an acceptable method of scriptural interpretation.

"In truth, F-S-HS aren't three discrete self-sentient centers of consciousness conjoined as one." This is not the doctrine of the trinity. Nor is "And it presents a concept that divides God into three minds-wills." In a way human beings cannot comprehend, there is one God who is also three persons. Not manifestations, extensions, mind-will existential constructs, or created beings. They are spoken of in scripture AS God. They speak of, and address each other as persons, not as aspects or extensions of one.

The limitations you place on the Spirit or the Word a extra-biblical, using definitions that fit a "Oneness Model" do not conform to the facts of plain reading of Scripture. "Modeling" is a means of isolationism by which facts are filtered to fit the model, instead of shaping the model to fit the facts, not to mention redefinition of terms and setting up the "strawman" arguments.

I hope you have a better "Oneness" argument then the one you presented.

And BTW... spirit-soul-body is not a philoso-Gnostic construct like the Neo-Platonic, Stoic, and Hellenistic influence for unbiblical Trinity formulation. Man is spirit-soul-body (1Thess. 5:23, Gen. 2:7, Hebrews 4:12), and made in God's image. There are numerous scriptural references to God's soul and spirit, and Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead...bodily. Conversely, there are no references to God as three "persons". Hebrews 1:3 is hupostasis (substance) (singular), and refers only to Jesus. 2Cor. 2:10 is prosopon, and refers only to Jesus. Trinity three "persons" is fabricated from inference such as that in your post.

Trinity is unscriptural error. Filioque is unscriptural error upon error. And I'm not presenting a philoso-Gnostic construct like Trinity. Feel free to read my thread.

 

[endofallfears]

then there is the thing Jesus had to be diety in order to take the eternal punishment for all mankind. I do not believe this either.

1. God did not say the penalty of sin is eternal death, He said it is death

It is only diety that could be sinless. Only diety has the capacity to die for all mankind(if it were possible for a man to be sinless he could only cover a small number of sins in the past of only one other man)

2. Those who suffer "eternal death" do so because they rejected Christ. Not because they sinned.

"For the wages of sin is death". It's sin that sends people to Hell, and rejecting Christ keeps them on that same path. Are there sinners who die but DON'T go to Hell?

3. Jesus had the unique experience of having an eternal relationship with the father non of us can comprehend. Even at birth he experienced the father like non of us have ever experienced him. We can not comprehend the pain which would be caused by God turning his back on us, Because even if we are saved, we have never experienced the father as Jesus has, and will not until we get to heaven. So we can not comprehend what Jesus experience when he hung on the cross, and the Father and spirit "turned their backs" on him

Since Jesus has an eternal relationship with the Father, and only God is eternal, then Jesus must be diety if he also is eternal.

Remember, Jesus took a beating no ordinary man (probably no man) would have lived through. Yet he did not cry out once in pain. Yet there came a moment on the cross. When Jesus cried out (literally screamed) in pain, My God, My God why has thou forsaken me. I bet if you took all the pain all mankind has suffered from adam until the last man and put it together. this did not come close to the pain Jesus felt when the father left him for three hours. This is what Jesus did for us.

This is true.

This is what disarmed satan. Satans lie that God is not loving is destroyed, it has no power. Because who can deny God is not loving if he did this for his Enemy (us) Also. No angel who did not follow satan can ever question the love of God again. (there will never be a rebellion in heaven again) And no man who stands before Christ on judgment day can have an excuse. Knowing then that what God did for us is real, and they passed his grace gift up.

I don't believe God had anything to prove to Satan or the angels.

 

[endofallfears]

And BTW... spirit-soul-body is not a philoso-Gnostic construct like the Neo-Platonic, Stoic, and Hellenistic influence for unbiblical Trinity formulation. Man is spirit-soul-body (1Thess. 5:23, Gen. 2:7, Hebrews 4:12), and made in God's image. There are numerous scriptural references to God's soul and spirit, and Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead...bodily. Conversely, there are no references to God as three "persons". Hebrews 1:3 is hupostasis (substance) (singular), and refers only to Jesus. 2Cor. 2:10 is prosopon, and refers only to Jesus. Trinity three "persons" is fabricated from inference such as that in your post.

Trinity is unscriptural error. Filioque is unscriptural error upon error. And I'm not presenting a philoso-Gnostic construct like Trinity. Feel free to read my thread.

You deny the use of those arguments, but the foundation of your argument is classically greek, in that the study of the nature of man leads us to an understanding of the nature of God, whereas in Scripture it is the study of the nature of God that gives understanding to the nature of man. For man to be made in the image of God does not give us insight into his incommunicable attributes or his eternal nature, for we are mortal, and God cannot be reduced to a divine human being.

Using greek definitions from Strong's is not an argument, since Hebrew and Greek are neither inspired or divine languages, and only hold weight in the context in which those words are used.

The doctrine of the trinity does not deny that God is one, or teach that God is three, but in some mysterious way, God is both three and one at the same time. It is an element of his eternal nature that the human mind cannot fully comprehend, but recognize it as the solution that harmonizes Scripture.

 

[Tigger2]

Friend, First of all, The Holy Spirit is not an "it". Second of all, the Holy

Spirit is called God in Acts 5. Thirdly, to deny that the Holy Spirit is God

and a "He" and not an "it" and that He is a person is an ancient heresy

called Macedonianism. (To the best of my recollection).

The idea of the Holy Spirit as the mere, impersonal "power of God" is the

heretical error and heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) sect

and of the former Worldwide Church of God of Herbert W. Armstrong

(ARMSTRONGISM).

Dear friend, I am sorry if I can't see what you are really saying. But I don't

understand how you can believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one

God, but that they are not 3 persons. If they are not three distinct persons,

then they all the same person, and they are confused with each other into

just one person, which is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism. See: GOOGLE

reference Wikipedia under SABELLIANISM. God bless you, dear friend.

As it is, the church is not "my church". The church is the church, and does

not twist Scripture. I as an individual may have failed in the past and twisted


Scripture. May God prevent me from doing that any more.


The real Church cannot twist Scripture: It must remain unchangeable

(according to Matt. 16:18).

Dear friend, I do not "belittle God to no end" by saying that the Holy Spirit is

a person. That is a mischaracterization of our faith in one God in three

persons.


It is good that you believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The limitation of your thought is an apparent phobia of the word "persons"

when it comes to God. What else are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but three

Divine Persons?

It is not good if you deny that the Holy Spirit is God.

Consider the following:

"Jesus Christ, our Lord and God and Savior, is the "way, the TRUTH, and the

life," consequently He can teach nothing but truth. It should be obvious, then,

that any religious organization which teaches false doctrine in any matter,

great or small, does not speak for Christ. He cannot say to any such

organization of men as He said to the founders of His Church, "Who hears

you, hears me." He can approve only of that organization which teaches the

exact truth and nothing but the truth.

"The fact of the 200 clashing denominations [in the name of Christ and

Christianity in America] can only mean one of two things; either they are all

wrong, or one is right and the rest wrong. To accept the first conclusion

would, of course, designate Christ as a deceiver and a false prophet, hence

the second conclusion must be right.

"I attained to the sure knowledge, therefore, that of the many opposing

faiths, one and only one must be the true faith. My problem was to find the

right one.

"My examination of various Protestant sects convinced me that their

adherents were all sincere, and since I knew that their differences sprang

from the fact that they all interpreted the Bible in a different manner, I finally

decided that private interpretation of the Bible alone, without any reference

to the traditions of the ancient Church, cannot lead to all truth. It became

increasingly evident to me that so long as the "Bible only" doctrine is adhered

to, never until the end of the world will the Protestants agree among

themselves. Yet Christ demands unity.

"After much thought on the subject, I finally came to understand the

following truths. The Bible taken by itself, divorced from all history, and

tradition is a difficult book to understand. Men of honesty and sincerity

deduce radically divergent beliefs and doctrines from the same book. But it is

also clear that the tastes and fancies of the individual in a large part

determine what he will find in the Bible. In other words one is very likely to

find what he wants to find. The individual may not be conscious of any

dishonesty in his interpretations, but his own inhibitions, his own training and

traditions as to right and wrong, are sure to color somewhat his

interpretations, causing him to "spiritualize" certain "hard sayings," where

the literal meaning conflicts with his own tastes, or to insist on a literal

understanding of the text which happens to appeal to him. It cannot be

disputed, then, that the Christian religion as established by the "Bible only"

method, in the last analysis becomes largely a matter of personal taste and

fancy.

"It is manifest that some objective authority is needed which transcends the

subjectivism of individual interpretation. Moreover, God, who is both

omniscient and just, could not demand unity of us and at the same time LIMIT

His instructions to a book upon which seekers in good faith cannot possibly

agree. The Holy Book is indeed infallible, but without an infallible interpreter,

its value is only relative and problematical. Christianity, however, if it be from

God, must teach truths which are not relative or problematical, but absolute

and sure. Hence reason itself demands the existence of an objective witness

and authority capable of a sure interpretation of the Bible and of everything

else which any honest seeker after truth needs to know" (see for example:

TO THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. From

Cincinnati, Ohio, 1949 AD. by Mr. Chrysostomos H. Stratman. (1949).

Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery. q.v.).

God bless you. AMEN.

God have mercy on us; AMEN AND AMEN.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Friday, April 1, 2011 AD (n.c. date).

You speak so much but say so little. I never said the Holy Spirit wasn't God. Once again you twist my words just like scripture. If the Holy Spirit is the power of God manifest in all the world, how could it not be God. Bring your thinking back down to simpler terms & maybe you could understand the basics!! Not up in the realm of higher thinking. I thank God daily that I am a simple person!!