infinity is an unreal number, that is to say, it operates under different parameters than 1, 2, and 3. 5 - 2 = 3. BUT infinity - 2 = infinity. You cannot take away from it, and everything that is added to it becomes it.
I personally believe that mathematically, God can be best understood as infinity, and satan can best be described as 0.
The mystery of the doctrine trinity is this: it's so mysterious that it's neither explicitly nor implicitly found in the Scriptures. One has to read back into Scripture concepts,terminology, metaphysics, symbology and meanings that were either antithetical or aposteriori to the revealed teachings of the Hebrews in Pre-Rabbinic 1st and 2nd Temple Judaism/ and to the Judaeo Christianity of Paul.
I believe that the Trinity is implicitly taught in scripture, certainly with the relation between the Father and the Son in the ontological trinity. The economic trinity is very explicit in scripture, so explicit in fact that opposers will try and use them "against" the doctrine, or at least what they think it is (very often I find they don't have a clue).
The tacit acceptance of Trinity allows the believer to enter into a Holy Spirit derived ecstatic mode which allows one to feel the divine harmony and to reconcile the paradoxical the apparent contradictions to peer into the deep hidden world behind the words Father, Son, Holy Spirit for these three reveal an archetypal metaphysical realm that allows one to see more than the written word but to sense in the heart the the primordial Ur concept that is the Trinity.
This binding of plurality(persons) to unity(ousia) explains the mystery of Scriptural Binitarian Incarnation that through progressive revelation also reveals the personhood of the Holy Spirit as the parakletos or helper the 3rd co equal co eternal person of the One Godhead(Divine Nature). This is all found in Scripture, the Trinity is so simple that any child can understand it!
"God is One What Three Who's" Dr. James White... The Triune Godhead is a "thing". The God of the Scriptures can be defined as a "What" and "Thing" since the unity of the 3 persons is the Divine Mono-Ousia:the substance, essence, nature, hypostases, emanation,effulgence that we worship under the rubric of Monotheism. Since Ideas are eternal and the Son was the Idea of the Father the Son is therefore Eternal, since the Son is the morphe and eikon of the Father, the Incarnation binds them.
THE TRINITY is the core of who God is it's always disturbing to realize this, because we pay so little attention to the TRINITY and it's NOT this THING THAT'S EXPLICIT and out front, it's this THING that's so background and backdrop and so foundational that we miss it a lot in explicit ways, but you can't be a Christian unless you at least have a tacit understanding of the Trinity. Biola University Prof. Erik Thoennes
The Trinity is true because of the co-substantiality of the Immanent yet Economic Trinity.Christ's dyotheletism and emhypostasia is clearly revealed.Christ is homoousios with the Father and Spirit who in the kenosis revealed the perichoresis of the three. It is the ad intra and ab extra manifestation that reveals the eternal procession in the notions of the taxis and the ordo salutis which manifests the inner immanence of the Trinity. Eternal Functional or Temporal Incarnational Subordination.
@7F0X7 I do see what you're trying to say in regards to your analogy, but as is with the case with all analogies, it falls short at some point. Of course, though, that's first assuming that the analogy is even related to the topic or concept at hand. I'm absolutely open to discussion, and in fact I delight in it. You may PM me to get the ball rolling.
Everyone is arguing over the very nature of God as if it's something we can dissect and explain in the 4 (or 5 at best) dimensions that we can interact with. Why argue over what He is and isn't. NO ONE KNOWS. Not us lowly humans, the angels, Satan, or any creation because God is beyond anything He created. All we know is what the Bible tells us. There IS a Father, a Son, AND a Holy Spirit. The important thing is our relationship with Jesus Christ. THAT is what Satan HATES!
Mr. Zach.. Most of the time I hang on every word you say. You are profound and inciteful, but when it comes to your confounded trinity mantra, I would rather hang myself then suck down this slick deceit. You're a wonder worker of cogency. Yet still...so was the former arch-angel of light and a thousand voices. --You'll have a mean price to pay at the judgment.
The all-mighty Zach is trying to put a soul into something that is strictly contrived. Where is the biblical principle of trinity? "Being" in this case does not CLARIFY the human element and the basis of understanding the core constructs of a human/divine magistrate come to save the soul of man. TRINITY HAS NO SOUL!
Trinity belief is as asinine and abomidable as warbling.. then offering it as human dialogue.
@microvantastic I believe that even with textual proof you would not accept the facts. You totally missed the point of what Ravi was saying. Your presuppositions are exposed! You don't want dialogue, you want to argue.
@Ajntb2Sli Facts?? I worship a distinct deity with a divine Soul. You can't get more "factual" then that. Trinity has no soul. Trinity doctrine is Satan's crown jewel of deception. Your conceptualization is trapped in numeration. I know it's difficult, but just think about it. 3 in 1 is at best..an alliance. Anything that's not a an identifiable Person is a lie; a program; a deception. I know who I talk to, & pray to: a "Someone" --not a "holy" conglomerate.
The fact that electrons can exist in 2 places at once seems like a contradiction to us, but it happens because of the nature of the 5th dimension and probability. So the point is that the trinity is only a contraction to the 4 or 5 dimensions that we can observe and measure. Physicists believe there could be as many as 25 dimensions, so the only one's who would limit the nature of the almighty creator of the universe are the very narrow minded. God is far beyond what we can understand.
@7F0X7 Can't "worship" character, nature, emotion, love, or slick theologins, or conglomerates, or numerations, or a "holy" alliance. Polytheism is polytheism: many as "one', or one as "many" still reeks of SATANISM.
"Let US make man in OUR image is a holy DUALITY, with the Father YAH as the ultimate "ONE". Their "image" is confirmed in the GLORIOUS "2" ..in everything wonderful!
Just ask yourself... "What, in Life is composed of 2?" .....daaah!!
In the novel "Flat land", a 2 dimensional square being is visited by a 3 dimensional cube being and the cube takes the square back through all the lower dimensions. The fact that the square (or anything external) existed was a "contradiction" to the zero dimensional point. The fact that the square could go around the one dimensional line characters was a contradiction to them. The fact that the cube could go through the center of the square was a contradiction to him. Now let's look at our world
@7F0X7 When there is an actual contradiction, then there is a serious problem: Two conflicting statements cannot both be believed in. God asks us to belief in Him and certain things about Him - if any of these things He presents as a contradiction, we cannot be expected to believe in it. Just one of many contradictions in the doctrine of the Trinity is the idea of the "incarnation," the "God-man" with the "hypostatic union." None of these terms are found in the Bible, but ignoring that...
@7F0X7 Here's the big problem: God cannot be tempted. Now, you can play the nature game all you like - He was tempted according to His human nature and not His divine nature etc, but that's not going to work. No matter what form God takes up, He cannot be tempted. It poses a very serious contradiction.
To make this even more clear would be to ask, "Could Jesus have sinned?" See how the dual-nature construct falls apart here?
@7F0X7 If Christ couldn't have sinned, He wasn't really tempted, and as a result He wasn't really just like us in every manner - He would've just been playing a role or act. He would not have really been a man - and that simply would not do as the perfect sacrifice.
On the flip-side, if Jesus could have sinned, then He would not be God, for if God sinned, He would cease to exist as God, for God is good - all the time.
@7F0X7 The definition of God means He is incorruptible; He can do absolutely no wrong. If God was tempted to do wrong, we would then have a different God - One that is contrary to the Bible's portrayal of Him.
If you are totally honest with yourself, you will see that you cannot simultaneously believe that Jesus could really have sinned and couldn't have sinned. He was either fallible, or infallible. He was either man, or He wasn't.
@OneTruthFinder I'll expand on the problem. In Matthew, Jesus is "tempted", yet God should have no desire to sin. If Jesus is God the Son and simply would never sin even though his human flesh was tempted then it would imply that there is a standard of righteousness that is above (or at least outside of) God. On the other hand, If God is always right simply by definition of being God, then Jesus's temptation would be meaningless since his choice would be right no matter what.
@OneTruthFinder I have to say that I respect you a lot for accurately explaining this problem about the character of God. I've wrestled with the issue for years and when I bring up the issue to my Christian friends, they always fail to see the logical incongruence. But you are broad minded enough to see it and regardless of your beliefs, you've been fair in your illustration. I'd actually like to talk to you more about it.
@7F0X7 Your comparison is rather shallow. You're comparing one type of existence with another type. It would be like saying a spirit being can pass through a physical being. That's no contradiction. To us, it's a mystery how spirit beings work, but it isn't a contradiction. A contradiction is where you have two contradictory statements. This example is poor, at best. We can believe in the cube and the square without any violation to the law of non-contradiction.
@OneTruthFinder What you said about my flat land analogy makes sense, but it would be a contradiction to a 2 dimensional being if I put one of my fingers through his world where he could see and another of my fingers next to the other and told him that both things he saw were me at once. He would see (from his perspective), 2 separate entities, but they were really just two different parts of me. It's a contradiction to him because he doesn't know that 3 dimensions exists.
@microvantastic when it comes to green backs , no christian so far want to swap $1 for $3. I guess i have not spoken in toungues or healed anyone yet. Then maybe i can convince a christian to defy logic and believe that $1+$1+$1= $1.
1.the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.
2.something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted.
3.a document or message imparting news, views, information, etc.
Here's another question: Is God omniscient?
Answer: Yes
If God needs to talk to God then He is found to not be omniscient. But if He is omniscient and you persist He does talk to Himself, then this is just an act that He does for us
@jamaicanification No. And neither do you truly believe it either. No one can, because it is a contradiction. When something is a contradiction, you can't honestly believe in it. Let me explain: Suppose you believe you're hungry and totally full at the exact same time. What are you going to do? Eat a meal or not? You'll have to pick one, because you only have two options. And the moment you do act upon one premise, you're immediately denying the other premise to be true.
@OneTruthFinder Those examples are fine and all, but where is the contradiction in the Trinity? Can you point it out instead of saying its a contradiction?
@OneTruthFinder There is always a 3rd option. I can go puke out everything I just ate to make more room for the thing I want to eat. I chose one, but denied it at the same time, in order to make room for the other. The Trinity is not a contradiction. Just because YOU don't believe it, does not mean that its contradictory. The evidence of the Tri-une God is there. search for it.
@Ajntb2Sli Ah, nicely done there - so you believed you were full, and that's why you puked out your previous food, hence making the first premise, the one that you thought you were hungry, to be false.
Contradictions exist regardless of what you, me or anyone else believes. No one can say, in the absolute sense of temperature, that the sun is both hot and cold at the exact same time. Impossible.
Sorry, but the Trinity is a contradiction. If you'd like, I can PM you to elaborate.
@OneTruthFinder Question: Do you talk to your father? Answer: I'm hoping its a yes.
1. Just in the same way that you talk to your dad is the same concept that God the Father talks to His son, Jesus the God, in so far as God the Holy Spirit speaks to believers. The concept of the Familly structure is there. As well as rank in family. Each have characteristics. Each has their part in the family. But all are within the same family. Just like you!
@Ajntb2Sli Of course I talk to my father, as well as my Father in Heaven.
God the Father talks to His human Son. He talks to all His children.
Jesus isn't God; He's the Word of God - big difference. God speaks through Him to His children.
Family structure is there, of course. Those who believe in Christ are begotten of God. We are His children, and brethren of Jesus Christ. No need for mental Trinitarian gymnastics to understand that.
As for the other "philosophical problem": Before creation existed, time didn't exist so you can't say that there was a time when there was nothing for God to love. Furthermore, before creation physically existed, it already existed in the mind of God. God is both in time, at the beginning, present and the end, as well as simultaneously outside of time.
Mr Zacharias is using clever language and philosophy, but bearing his propositions based on false premises from his own perspective, not God's.
What rubbish. "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." 1 Cor 2:1 (KJV)
"guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”" 1 Tim 6:20 (ESV)
This man resorts to Greek philosophy to explain a "diversity in unity".
So the Son of God is God. Does that mean the Son is also the Father? Nice try Ravi Zacharias. I was a former Oneness and Trinitarian believer myself until I learned that the early apostolic fathers identified a distinction between the Son and the Father and identified Jesus as God but NOT in the same way the Father is God. I'm with Newton and Arius. ARIAN!
@Danielezerable, Huh? You're an Arian? I thought you were Oneness? And if you think Arianism was believed as an orthodox truth prior to the 4th Century you are sadly mistaken since no such belief existed, and don't say Origen because his terminlogy is defined by his system of theology and thought.
@LogosTheos Polycarp. The apostles and post-apostolic fathers called Jesus Lord and the Father God. They did call Jesus God (Theos or Powerful one) to show people that Jesus was their king. The Roman emperors called themselves Theos or Powerful one as well. Jesus is God but not in the same way the Father is. The Father is the True God. The Son of God cannot be His own Son. That's ridiculous!
@Danielezerable, The Ante-Nicene Fathers called Jesus God (theos) and believed he was theos because it is what the Bible explicitly teaches (John 1:1;1:18, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 1 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, Philippians 2:5-11). The Pagan use of theos is irrelavant. This 'theos' is identified with the honors, names, and attributes of YHWH implying strongly Jesus is theos as the Father is theos and not the same way as Moses or a Roman emperor was.
@Danielezerable, "Polycarp. The apostles and post-apostolic fathers called Jesus Lord and the Father God. They did call Jesus God (Theos or Powerful one) to show people that Jesus was their king."
There is no way you can substantiate this, it's just a way to circumvent the fact that the Ante-Nicene Fathers strongly attested in their writings to Jesus as Ho Theos. Search through Ignatius' epistles and Irenaus work 'Against Heresies".
@LogosTheos I can show you verses in the book which disprove Jesus as the true God or you can feel free to remain a Hell-bound Gnostic. Most of Ignatius's works have been doctored by Trinitarians over time. Look up TheMessianicGentile's channel. He can probably answer your questions. Does Jesus ever claim to be God? Why does Satan try to tempt him if he knew how fruitless it would be to lead God into sin? So much for overcoming sin, huh? Is Jesus the Son of God? And if God is a Trinity, He is th
@Danielezerable, Actually that's not true, 7 of Ignatius epistles are authentic the others have interpolations and are in dispute. Ephesians is original.
"TheMessianicGentile's channel"
I don't think he can answer my questions since he is no better in knowledge than you on this subject, I've seen his comments and his knowledge of Church History is full of holes and errors. I responded to some of his claims on you channel but you deleted them.
@LogosTheos e Son of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! You have a demon influencing your mind. Acts 7:55-56, Jesus is on GOD'S right hand! God=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oh, oops! You just denied Jesus was God! LOL!
@LogosTheos As for the other Genesis verses you bring up, they are referring to God, I won't dispute that. BUT, I will show you a verse which shows that it proves NOT A THING! Daniel 2:36 "Now we shall..." If referring to oneself in plural "proves" a "Trinity" then Daniel should be a "Trinity". On elohim...elohim can be used as singular or plural so that also is bigotry on the part of Trinitarian logic.
@Danielezerable, "Daniel 2:36 "Now we shall..." If referring to oneself in plural "proves" a "Trinity" then Daniel should be a "Trinity". "
The solution here is context, who are the "we" in Daniel 2:36 vs the "we" in Genesis 1:26? And remember this is not the only binitarian text I cited from the OT. Elohim is identified by context, the only Elohim that created man in his image is God, "us" identifies the plurality within one God.
God is not a name, is an essence. Is like saying my name is a human being which is not. The name of God is "I Am" Exodus 3:14 Jesus said "I Am": John 8:24, John 8:58 I AM the Bread of Life-John 6:35,41,48 I AM the Door-John 10:7 I AM the Good Shepherd-John 10:11 I AM the Way the Truth and The Life-John 14:6 I AM the Light of the world-John 8:12;9:5;12:46;Luke 2:32 I AM the True Vine-John 15:1 I AM the Resurrection & the Life-John 11:25 I AM the First and the Last-Rev 1:17;2:8;22:13 Etc...
Why are there some that say that there is no Holly Spirit? They only believe in the Father and Son and the Holly Spirit is just Gods power n spirit and shouldnt be considered as a 3rd. That there should only be the presence of God and Jesus, 1 and 2... Whats up with that??? They claim to go to the original Greek scriptures not tainted by translation or scholars... Or are they tainting the translation themselves now???
First of all Matthew was changed from "in the name of Jesus". This is a well known fact. And the church had recognized it did change the baptism from the original. Catholic (Encyclopedia II pg 263). And pope Benedict had made the statement the trinity came from Rome. You want to talk about the councils? They had to vote on what Christianity was to be! In other words the pagan converts created a new religion by popular opinion. You have yet pointed one thing that refers to a trinity.
@onemarktwoyou, You add to the Encyclopedia, the text has always remained the same as 2nd-3rd Century Christians quotations from Cyprian, Irenaus, Tertullian, and Justin attest to. If you read Cyprian works it was because gnostic heretics kept baptizing in "In Jesus name" causing believers to get confused between heresy and orthodoxy so the Matthean formula given by Christ was used more.
@onemarktwoyou, Theophilus the Bishop of Antioch (180 A.D.) "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."
Theophilus uses the three days prior to creation of the stars as being analogous to the nature of God as a Trinity. That's primitive trinitarian thought in the 2nd century long before any "Roman Catholic council".
You assume that these Greek speaking and educated people obtained the triune god(s) from early Christians.
I say it was Greek mythology that they used.
Example Plato stated a good three hundred years earlier describing god(s)
(1) The “first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe; (2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and (3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit”
They twisted it into a ball to help describe Jesus's divinity.
@onemarktwoyou, Liar, you're not making an error you are lying without checking the veracity of your assertions. This is fallacy of equivocation since you don't properly identify these "Greek speakers" by name. If you're referring to 2nd Century theologians they never used Greek mythology since they were been killed and persectued by the pagans who held these views. They did borrow terminology from Plato, Stotic and other philsophers but only if it was consistent with Biblical truth.
@onemarktwoyou, This is just is a lame attempt to try to fallaciously equivocate Greek paganism with Trinitarian theology. Platonic thought is nothing like the Trinity and is hostile to an incarnation of a supreme God in the Flesh, it is more like Gnosticism which is influenced by Platonism itself, Platonic thought is more transcendent when viewing the nature of God(s). You have already been utterly refuted by me and Wunji throught the Spirit so stop responding with lame arguments.
You haven't stated or proved anything except the damage that dogma does to a religion. No one questions that G-d has a spirit. The argument is that G-d is not a box of legos. There is no separation of the spirit and G-d, nor his embodiment as a man. There is one G-d, not three as described by your Greek theology. You can accept Greek mythology as part of your doctrine. I will follow the early Christians. Who never heard of the triune god.
@onemarktwoyou " I will follow the early Christians. Who never heard of the triune god."
you either don't know anything about the early Christians or are an outright liar.
the first early Christians were the apostles themselves who spoke clearly in the Epistles and Gospels they wrote of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
those early Christians who were the first fruits of what the apostles preached didn't deviate from what they wrote and preached about it.
@onemarktwoyou, Merely asserting what you believe without substance to back up it means absolutely nothing.
"There is one G-d, not three as described by your Greek theology."
This is a prime example, you have already been utterly refuted by the 2nd and 3rd century quotations not only affirming the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 but that early Christians indeed held on to the Trinity in primitive forms of thought. I will dialogue with you no further, leave that darkness of disbelief...
You reject all the main stream scholars that state that Matthew(28:19) was change if not just right out created. And the admission by the catholic church that they did baptize in the name of Jesus. And two early popes also rejected the traditional trinity theology. Both matt (28:19) and 1john (5:7) are in fact known corruptions. And 1John 5:7 is the only solid triune verse in the bible. You would rather follow dogma than scripture.
@onemarktwoyou can you please give me 2 scholars who said that this has been changed because I have just scanned through 9 different biblical commentaries and have found no evidence to support your claim.
@HaShim383, He's going to keep on ranting and complaning to save his heretical pride. Check the previous pages to see how he got smoked by me and another fellow by the grace of Lord Jesus Christ.
@LogosTheos Modalsim is truth! Where was the Father when the Son died?
John 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.
This is a web site I ran across when I was confronted on the subject and started me exploring it. I don't know your religious back ground but this area where I started.
@LogosTheos The Father (Creator personality) The Son (Redeemer personality) Holy Spirit (The Revelator)
There is also Duanity which decrees Holy Spirit is just the Spirit of the Father and according to John 14:10 The Father is in Jesus so Jesus is The Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit!
@Danielezerable, "John 14:10 The Father is in Jesus so Jesus is The Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit!"
This is a form of monarchianism or modalism which developed in the 3rd Century around Rome based on a misunderstanding of terms like "persona" being promoted by theologians such as Tertullian and Hippolytus. No, John 14:10 doesn't means Jesus is the Father, this is called mutual indwelling, the Father and Son can also dwell in believers (John 14:20)
@LogosTheos Well, the Father was in the Son. So worshipping the Son means we worship the Father and worshipping the Father means we worship the Son. So arguably, the Son is also the very embodiment of the Father. It wasn't until after (John 14:20) Jesus raised from the dead that the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) was able to enter into us.
@Danielezerable, You are being inconsistent with your oneness theology (God is one person who occupies three offices Father/Son/Holy Spirit), The Holy Spirit is the Father/Son according to modalism, John 14:20 demonstrates that just because the Father dwells in me that doesn't mean I'm the Father. You seem to be interpreting this passage in light of a distortion of Colossians 2:9. Also you pressupose what you have yet to prove, that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth as a distinct person.
@LogosTheos The Trinity states the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. You want scriptural proof that all three are the same? All right. Isaiah 9:6: Jesus is referred to as "Eternal Father". Oh! Jesus is the Son and the Father now? Luke 1:30-35: The Holy Spirit IMPREGNATES MARY! The Holy Spirit is the FATHER?!? So the Father=Son and the Father=The Holy Spirit and the Son=Jesus so all three equal JESUS!
@Danielezerable, Acutally the Trinity affirms that their is One God who exist eternally as 3 persons, not 1 person or offices as demonstrated by the Greek text of Matthew 28:19. Eternal Father doesn't mean Jesus is the Father, only that he has the chracteristics of God, the underlining Hebrew could read "Father of Eternity" as well. John 16:7 shows that the Holy Spirit is distinct from Christ, since Christ sends him. I have no clue who you can take Luke 1:30-35 to mean Jesus is the Holy Spirt
@LogosTheos Question: why do the apostles baptize in the name of Christ? You see, all offices actually belong to Christ. The doctrine of Trinity has merely proposed a solution as to how it can be that all of the work Christ did on earth somehow work out in this. BUT, from reading the Bible, the true nature of God is that Christ=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They don't act as one. One acts as them. So, Jesus is His own Father, our Comforter, and the Son of the Living God. Hope that explained thin
@Danielezerable, " The doctrine of Trinity has merely proposed a solution as to how it can be that all of the work Christ did on earth somehow work out in this"
Actuallly it's the other way around, the modalist proposed this around Rome in the 3rd century to explain how their is ONE GOD and 3 divine beings and attack Tertullians terminology. Their high emphasis on the unity of God destroyed the subsistence of the Son and his pre-existence which led to the Church condeming it as Heresy.
@LogosTheos No. Tertullian made an attempt to attack the oneness theology at the time. The Trinitarian formula turned out to be a whole mess of gurbledigurk that started leading people away from the faith. Some of the problems that I have noticed as well as others have pointed out, is that they sometimes refer to distinctions such as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The problem is that the thing is so confusing that it can often lead to flat-out polytheism.
@Danielezerable, This has been the problem with Modalism from it's birth, accusing Trinitarians of polytheism because of thier terminology. In order for modalist theology to work Orthodox Christological truths had to be denied, mainly the preexistence and subsistence of the Son which are present as a orthodox truth throughout the writings of Ignatius, Irenaus, Athenagoras, Novatian, Cyprian and more. That's why is was condemned as a heresy which failed to explain the unity of the Godhead.
@LogosTheos What one needs to do is propose a formula that has no contradictions but mere mortals can only come close. Although the oneness formula may be the most accurate for now. Omnipresence is displayed, it isn't sacrificed. All the glory be to Christ, etc. Furthermore, when we see the baptismal formula given in Matthew 28:19, and then see that the apostles are baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, we realize that these are actually titles given to Christ.
@Danielezerable, Oneness theology never existed before the 3rd Century, it spawned as a minority in and around Rome, it was also pretty much non-existent in the East except for a few Sabellians in Alexandria. We have no documentation of such beliefs as modalism before the 3rd century. The Orthodox belief has always being the pre-existence and subsistence of the Son. Rome is known for putting too much emphasis on the unity of the Godhead even though most did not subscribe to Monarchianism.
@LogosTheos You need to understand oneness theology then. Oneness does believe in the preexistence of Jesus and teaches Him as the God of the OT. Oneness teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are titles for the same person. I do know that the Trinity is monotheistic. I used to be a Trinitarian. Anyway, oneness sees the Son as the incarnate God. Jesus doesn't really become the Son until the incarnation. Holy Spirit is Jesus still coming in the flesh and Father is Him in heaven.
@Danielezerable, The Son is the human nature and office of the the preexistent Father according to Oneness. So when you say the Son preexisted you mean the Father, not the Son.This view is refuted by binitarian passages in the Old Testament (Gen 1:26, Gen 19:24, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 48:12-16). Early Christians constantly quoted Genesis 1:26 as a proof text of Christ eternal preexistence and subsistence apart from the Father. This is easily found in Irenaus',, Clement of Rome or Barnabas' writings
@LogosTheos Kay...1. what's wrong with us saying the Son is the Father incarnate? Jesus even said the Father was in Him (John 14:10). 2. What's wrong with us saying the Father and Son are one? Jesus even said so Himself (John 10:30). As for Psalm 110:1, read ALL of Acts 2. It's just a reiteration. It does not suggest duality or triality in the Godhead whatsoever since the Godhead is Christ (Col 2:9). Another interpretation on Gen. 19:24 is "sky" and not necessarily a second Lord.
@LogosTheos Oneness theology stresses God's omnipresence. I will say this in regards to the Trinitarian formula. Saying that only the Son died CAN e dangerous because that CAN lead to polytheism. So we need to understand the fullness of the Godhead died. That means Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
@onemarktwoyou Here's a suggestion. Use the Matthew 28:19 baptism to promote oneness. Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Who did the apostles baptize in the name of? Christ. And watch the argument backfire on them.
You can only KNOW Jesus by the Holy Spirit that He sent to lead us by after His resurrection. If you are still going by the bible then you are still under the curse of the law that Jesus died to redeem us from.
@BIBLEisMARKofBEAST This is completely ignorant of what we understand from scripture. The same scripture that you like to quote. People must have a knowledge of the gospel first to be saved (Rom 10) Where does this gospel come from? Ah, from the same scripture you love to say is the mark of the Beast! This is some form of "Taxi cab" fallacy. You hop in to quote the bible in support of your view, but then hop out of the bible and say that it is the mark of the beast - nonsensical!
@Wunji1 The bible is the history of my people. The Jews were controlled by the holy scriptures under the old covenant. Satan took it and controls people with it by telling them that it is the word of god. The only thing on earth that Satan cannot use is the Holy Ghost. When I refer to the bible, it's like referring to George Washington at Valley Forge, it has no authority. THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST.
The trinity was a pagan belief. It was brought in by the early christian converts. Before the second century no one thought G-d was three. The crime here is that Christianity was highjacked by pagans, and this is where all the dogmas came from.
@onemarktwoyou The doctrine of the trinity can be clearly seen in scripture and the early church saw it too. Some people think it wasn't believed because the creeds happened late 3rd early 4th century.. Thats when false doctrines started creeping in and the truth needed to be clearly stated. Not to mention prior to that Christians were struggling just to survive never mind openly meet and write. Interestingly enough it was to defend the manhood of Jesus not His Deity. Opposite of ppl today
NO! there is no doctrine to indicate a triune. For time savings, if you are going to argue the fact, can you state which bible you will reference. All credible apologist agree that the trinity is not in the bible.
Did Jesus give this? No. Did the prophets come to this? No. Did the disciples preach this? No. Did Moses get this on Mount Sinai? No.
It came about with pagan converts. In this area there was a number of surrounding religions that did believe in multiplicities.
@onemarktwoyou The word trinity is not but the doctrine comes straight from the text. This might help u understand /watch?v=7tLDU6v3V60&feature=channel_video_title
I watched the video.The Hebrew was out of context. Example: Elohim, If you check the usage of the word though out the bible and how it is used you will find it is majestic in nature, in that example he gave. This confusion is done with people trying to do what you call a "mechanical translation". Often times it is the first step, but the bible translates the bible. When you compare usage of the words in other areas and in what context they are used and when they are used it is clear.
@onemarktwoyou I understand the point u are trying to make. And i thank you for your thoughtful response but i must respectfully disagree. Even if i were to concede that one point which i do not, i still feel the doctrine stands as a hole based on a multitude of other scripture. I pray that God will align us both with His perfect truth.
@Danielezerable, If you have access to a library or enough money to buy on amazon please get Dr. J.N.D. Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines", he is a well known patristic authority. He has a chapter called "THIRD CENTURY TRINITARIANISM" which includes the development of Monarchianism and other Christogical heresies, Kelly also gives you primary documentation in the footnotes which you can look up on Philip Schaffs "Ante-Nicene Father" Volumes, to see the truth for yourself.
@onemarktwoyou Wow! You are actually going to say "All credible apologist(s) agree that the trinity is not in the bible." ??? That has to be the most fallacious statement I have heard in a long time. In essence you are saying that anyone who disagrees isn't a "credible" apologist - lol Do you seriously believe what you type? Do you say to yourself after you have typed something "Yep, that sounds true?" This is laughable, and shows your ignorance. Try thinking before you speak!
No apologist has said the trinity is found in the bible!
They said it is a "revelation". Given to the early church fathers. Centuries after Jesus put on the cross. Check the time lines before you rebuke someone. No one in the first century assumed its existence.
@onemarktwoyou If the Trinity is "revealed" in scripture, it is still scripture. The concept of the trinity is all over the bible. Of course the word "Trinity" is no where to be found - lol. You don't need a scholar to tell you that. Read it for yourself. The writers of the NT felt no need to call it the "Trinity", but the reality of what that word conveys is expressly written within the text of scripture.
@onemarktwoyou Even Jesus commanded that the disciples were to make other disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). What do you think that command implies? What did Isaiah understand and he wrote in Isaiah 45:5 that the "Lord is one, apart from me there is no God", and also record Isaiah 9:6 that a Son is given, and that His name shall be called "Mighty God"...? Christianity is based on this truth. This is why the Jews would not receive Him.
@onemarktwoyou The point? The Jews would not receive Jesus as God because of the Shema so they attempted to stone Him. Because Jesus was accepted as God by those who believed, the nature of the Godhead with regards to its unity/diversity was implicit. Therefore, It is "splitting hairs" to say that the word "Trinity" is not in the bible. The early Christians believed this, as it was the basis for faith in Christ. To say otherwise ignores the evidence...
If you want to argue the trinity pick a bible version. I suggest you pick the KJV for this, it has more compelling stance for the trinity. Because the sources the niv and others uses are corrupt and less friendly for your argument. Also research early Christianity and the Trinity. You'll find that in the year 325 they had so many pagan concepts that they needed to sort out and to figure which ones they were going to keep. And please stop calling 3rd century Christians "early".
@onemarktwoyou You have obviously missed the point here, which is not surprising as you do not believe in the trinity. The word "moral" or "morality" does not appear even once in all of scripture, yet to find anyone, save Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Singer, Shermer, or any other Atheist out there is notably supersillious. Lastly, you are ignorant regarding the early church. I suggest reading Clement of Rome's letter to the church at Corinth. BTW, he was a 1st century bishop...
@onemarktwoyou Further, I, and everyone else here, would appreciate it if you would answer my points. Why did Jesus command the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Would did Isaiah speak say in one place that God is one, and yet also say that a son is given, and that he would be called "Mighty God"? I need an answer... thanks...
Which bible version are you wanting to use? I'd appreciate a common ground for this. It does make a difference. I am willing to argue this on your home ground. But also it will aid in later discussion on the subject. And second it would help to know if you believe every word in the bible is inspired. Or do you translation mistakes occur. All I'm trying to do is save time. You just let me no what hill to charge up.
Alright if you don't want to be on the same page. The commentaries on (Matt 28:19) States that it was changed from "in the name of Jesus." Also the manuscripts old enough to show this, someone ripped out the pages. And the catholic (encyclopedia II page 263) states they changed the baptism to the three. But early letters give us the knowledge that it was changed. If you study the reasons for the 325 council of Nicea they had to decide how many gods there was, 1,2,3,7,13,ect...(3 won).
@onemarktwoyou I'm not sure where you get all of your information, but the two earliest extant MSS. (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) both have the threefold name phrase. Maybe you would say "Well, that is still centuries after Christ. Ok, then let's move backwards from the MSS. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in "A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII" references the baptism account. Cyprian (200-258AD), in the "Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian" references the same. Continuing...
@onemarktwoyou Hippolytus (170-236), in Fragments: "Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus" references Matthew 28:19; Turullian (155-230), who was the first person to use the word "Trinity", in "On Baptism, Chapter XIII" (c.200) references the account; Even Ignatius (35/50 - 98/117), in his epistle to the "Philippians", references Matthew 28:19. I have studied the decisions of all the council as expressed by each canon.
@onemarktwoyou I have also read the accounts of the Council by Eusebius and the like. To say that the bishops has to decide between "1, 2, 3, 7, 13, etc." is absurd. The error of Arius only served to define in the creed what was the common understanding by the overwhelming majority of the bishops, and that by even those not present. The issue was one of the substance of Christ with the Father as the "trinity" was already assumed. Arius sought to disconnect what has already been connected.
@onemarktwoyou Plainly, Arius thought much like the Jews as he maintained that none could equal God. Yet, he believed in a lower form of Christ, and so sought to make that distinction a foundational premise. He failed miserably for reasons that can be adduced from what has already been said...
@onemarktwoyou So, the understanding of Matthew 28:19 as interpolated is clearly a liberal bias to the otherwise indubitable evidence.
How about Isaiah that has been quoted? How about Zechariah 12:10? There are plenty of verses that could be cited. Would you care to refute every single one?
I'll assume Isaiah 44:3. Because Zec(12:10) and Isaiah states that G-d has a spirit does not prove the triune. Next you could screw up the Hebrew and state that genesis 1:1 with Elohim. I notice you didn't point out 1John5:7? That's right you use the corrupt text of the vaticanus. Because documents were not used thus preserved, does not prove the writings are older, but the paper is by the lack of use. Erasmus had a heck of a time getting a copy of the vaticanus.
@onemarktwoyou Why do you continually avoid my comments without responding to them? I gave no less than four paragraphs with support for Matthew 28:19 all the way back to the first century, and not a peep from you about it. Why? You switch to passages that I haven't even quoted as if I was using them for support. I merely quoted the two MSS. to show that the correct version of the passage appears in the 4th century. This was simply a starting point. I haven't said anything about Elohim.
@onemarktwoyou Nor, have I mentioned 1 John 5:7 which everyone knows was added later. No one disputes that so why are you introducing things that have not even been discussed here? Please respond to the evidence that I have posted - namely, the early citations of Matthew 28:19 with Ignatius (who knew John the apostle I might add) in the first century. It makes no difference if the Vaticanus has been corrupted but the Apocrypha and verses like 1 John 5:7. We count those things that agree..
@Wunji1, 1 John 5:7 doesn't even matter since Cyprian in the 3rd Century in his Treatise 1:6 said : "... If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?"
This was an allusion to the 3 witnesses. Christians were already using this language prior
@onemarktwoyou In other words, we know that those things corrupt the text of the Vaticanus, but the rest of the text that isn't agrees with those texts that haven't been corrupted, and Matt 28:19 agrees. Further - you have totally missed Isaiah and Zechariah. The reference was not to God's spirit, but the reference to the SON! Your attempt to redirect is showing that you do not have a rebuttal to what has been said which argues strongly in favor of the proposed view :)
he rarely EVER uses scripture to defend the trinity, you know why cuz its not there hes assuming its there and tries to make sense of somting that cant be back by scripture, unless of course you twist it. hes a WICH( sooth sayer)hes a pile of bullshit.
@NazariusThe7th : I would Say.. Trinity Couldn't be understood properly by anyone in the world.. But to explain to you in simple terms.. For example there is "Sun" which is one, but it gives Light and Heat.. in the same there is god.. Light as Jesus and Heat as Holy spirit.. hope u understood my point.. sry abt bad english!! :)
@AnImmortalEra : If u believe that ur body is the Temple.. then some one should be in there.. either Evil Or God.. Means if u follow evil then no place for god.. But if u follow Truth, the Living God, then God will Live in you. How ? By his spirit which he has given freely to everyone who belives in Jesus. Once he is in u, he will guide u, teach u etc., take u closer to God. And u wouldn't sin any more. My opinion!! :)
@blues2sim if god lives in you, you can still sin because man is not perfect. that is why god came and died in the first place. With god in you gives you the strnght and will to try not to sin, without man sinning why would people ask god for forgiveness?
@tylerpurugg23 : Yes i agree that man is not perfect. God gives u the strength to overcome sin. Because god forgives, it doesn't mean that u eligible to sin and take advantage. If god really lives in u, and u have intimate relationship with god. Why would u sin ?
@blues2sim It would be hopeless to try to convince you that what you are saying is absolute rubbish. But at least I can tell you why. Because there is no magic in the world, all your belief in creation and miracles is founded on sand. The bible is a plagarised collection of Iron Age myths which primitive people wrote because they had no better explanation. It is immoral, and the cause of terrible conflict,
Deny it all and live this life free and with affection.
@StrumstickJoe :Can u prove that "bible is a plagarised collection of Iron Age myths" ??
Why don't u see that world is prefectly created by God, and everything in it has interlinked with another.
Can u explain why the world / nature is so prefect in it's function ?? can u explain why we have our own thinking capabilities/ WILL power which other creatures don't have ??
Anyways i would definetly say that your are not living freely & u don't have affection or love in your heart.
@blues2sim You believe in magic, miracles and the defeat of death. Because of lack of any evidence, I do not.
You must need the magic, and fear death, but I don't.
99% of all the species, including hominids, who have ever lived, have become extinct. Some perfection, eh? Some design!
A dead palestinian (who didn't really exist, but there are myths about him) said things which are bizarre and contradictory. Today he would be put away !
Live one life; do what you can; die and rejoin the stars.
@StrumstickJoe : U have option to believe or not to believe. Please remember that god created everything perfect as he is perfect. But we sinned and was out of Glorious plan of god, which he had for us. Do u have explanation for Natural disasters ?? But in Bible everything was prophesied before it can happen?? Do u think it ws by accident ?? Yes u have on Life and then u die.. But know the truth before u die..
@StrumstickJoe : I understood your Point, why those things happen ? I suggest u read "Sadhu Sundar Singh Book collections" which talks abt all these things. And Jesus gives answers to these questions. May be i m not a good explainer. But God explains it clearly. Peace!!!
If they were all like you the world wouldn't be in such danger.
I have recently had dialogue with a couple of christians who became aggressive as soon as their faith was questioned. If I was OTT with you I apologise. You don't deserve it.
But they did.
Peace to you.
I will look up your recommendation; and I suggest for you: "ZOMGitscriss umbrella atheist" on YTube
@blues2sim Christianity is a club of the willfully ignorant. We have your Bible as proof of its failure. It fails morally by sanctioning genocide, celebrating infanticide and tolerating slavery. It fails logically with self contradiction and historical inaccuracies. Above all it is immoral in the extreme; believers have to pick carefully to find their "love and salvation" in it..
I believe the best way of explaining it is this:
God is infinite
Infinity + Infinity + infinity = Infinity
God + Jesus + Holy Spirit = The God Head
infinity is an unreal number, that is to say, it operates under different parameters than 1, 2, and 3. 5 - 2 = 3. BUT infinity - 2 = infinity. You cannot take away from it, and everything that is added to it becomes it.
I personally believe that mathematically, God can be best understood as infinity, and satan can best be described as 0.
beardbreath 2 days ago
@beardbreath preach it brutha
UrdnotWrex1 9 hours ago
beautiful
infinitemika 3 days ago
beautiful
infinitemika 3 days ago
The mystery of the doctrine trinity is this: it's so mysterious that it's neither explicitly nor implicitly found in the Scriptures. One has to read back into Scripture concepts,terminology, metaphysics, symbology and meanings that were either antithetical or aposteriori to the revealed teachings of the Hebrews in Pre-Rabbinic 1st and 2nd Temple Judaism/ and to the Judaeo Christianity of Paul.
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
@Szygyify
I believe that the Trinity is implicitly taught in scripture, certainly with the relation between the Father and the Son in the ontological trinity. The economic trinity is very explicit in scripture, so explicit in fact that opposers will try and use them "against" the doctrine, or at least what they think it is (very often I find they don't have a clue).
iamTOTALLYredeemed 3 days ago
The tacit acceptance of Trinity allows the believer to enter into a Holy Spirit derived ecstatic mode which allows one to feel the divine harmony and to reconcile the paradoxical the apparent contradictions to peer into the deep hidden world behind the words Father, Son, Holy Spirit for these three reveal an archetypal metaphysical realm that allows one to see more than the written word but to sense in the heart the the primordial Ur concept that is the Trinity.
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
This binding of plurality(persons) to unity(ousia) explains the mystery of Scriptural Binitarian Incarnation that through progressive revelation also reveals the personhood of the Holy Spirit as the parakletos or helper the 3rd co equal co eternal person of the One Godhead(Divine Nature). This is all found in Scripture, the Trinity is so simple that any child can understand it!
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
"God is One What Three Who's" Dr. James White... The Triune Godhead is a "thing". The God of the Scriptures can be defined as a "What" and "Thing" since the unity of the 3 persons is the Divine Mono-Ousia:the substance, essence, nature, hypostases, emanation,effulgence that we worship under the rubric of Monotheism. Since Ideas are eternal and the Son was the Idea of the Father the Son is therefore Eternal, since the Son is the morphe and eikon of the Father, the Incarnation binds them.
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
"Speed read the Gospel of John looking for the Trinity and it's all over the place" Erik Thoennes
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
THE TRINITY is the core of who God is it's always disturbing to realize this, because we pay so little attention to the TRINITY and it's NOT this THING THAT'S EXPLICIT and out front, it's this THING that's so background and backdrop and so foundational that we miss it a lot in explicit ways, but you can't be a Christian unless you at least have a tacit understanding of the Trinity. Biola University Prof. Erik Thoennes
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Trinity is true because of the co-substantiality of the Immanent yet Economic Trinity.Christ's dyotheletism and emhypostasia is clearly revealed.Christ is homoousios with the Father and Spirit who in the kenosis revealed the perichoresis of the three. It is the ad intra and ab extra manifestation that reveals the eternal procession in the notions of the taxis and the ordo salutis which manifests the inner immanence of the Trinity. Eternal Functional or Temporal Incarnational Subordination.
Szygyify 2 weeks ago
@7F0X7 I do see what you're trying to say in regards to your analogy, but as is with the case with all analogies, it falls short at some point. Of course, though, that's first assuming that the analogy is even related to the topic or concept at hand. I'm absolutely open to discussion, and in fact I delight in it. You may PM me to get the ball rolling.
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
Does anyone know which book of CS Lewis he is talking about?
TheVision4Him 4 weeks ago
Everyone is arguing over the very nature of God as if it's something we can dissect and explain in the 4 (or 5 at best) dimensions that we can interact with. Why argue over what He is and isn't. NO ONE KNOWS. Not us lowly humans, the angels, Satan, or any creation because God is beyond anything He created. All we know is what the Bible tells us. There IS a Father, a Son, AND a Holy Spirit. The important thing is our relationship with Jesus Christ. THAT is what Satan HATES!
7F0X7 1 month ago
Mr. Zach.. Most of the time I hang on every word you say. You are profound and inciteful, but when it comes to your confounded trinity mantra, I would rather hang myself then suck down this slick deceit. You're a wonder worker of cogency. Yet still...so was the former arch-angel of light and a thousand voices. --You'll have a mean price to pay at the judgment.
microvantastic 1 month ago
The all-mighty Zach is trying to put a soul into something that is strictly contrived. Where is the biblical principle of trinity? "Being" in this case does not CLARIFY the human element and the basis of understanding the core constructs of a human/divine magistrate come to save the soul of man. TRINITY HAS NO SOUL!
Trinity belief is as asinine and abomidable as warbling.. then offering it as human dialogue.
Smell & taste the deception.. Oh ye sheeple!
Ask: Where's the "Textual" proof??
microvantastic 1 month ago
@microvantastic I believe that even with textual proof you would not accept the facts. You totally missed the point of what Ravi was saying. Your presuppositions are exposed! You don't want dialogue, you want to argue.
Ajntb2Sli 1 month ago
@Ajntb2Sli Facts?? I worship a distinct deity with a divine Soul. You can't get more "factual" then that. Trinity has no soul. Trinity doctrine is Satan's crown jewel of deception. Your conceptualization is trapped in numeration. I know it's difficult, but just think about it. 3 in 1 is at best..an alliance. Anything that's not a an identifiable Person is a lie; a program; a deception. I know who I talk to, & pray to: a "Someone" --not a "holy" conglomerate.
Trinity breaks the 1st commandment.
microvantastic 1 month ago
The fact that electrons can exist in 2 places at once seems like a contradiction to us, but it happens because of the nature of the 5th dimension and probability. So the point is that the trinity is only a contraction to the 4 or 5 dimensions that we can observe and measure. Physicists believe there could be as many as 25 dimensions, so the only one's who would limit the nature of the almighty creator of the universe are the very narrow minded. God is far beyond what we can understand.
7F0X7 1 month ago 2
@7F0X7 Can't "worship" character, nature, emotion, love, or slick theologins, or conglomerates, or numerations, or a "holy" alliance. Polytheism is polytheism: many as "one', or one as "many" still reeks of SATANISM.
"Let US make man in OUR image is a holy DUALITY, with the Father YAH as the ultimate "ONE". Their "image" is confirmed in the GLORIOUS "2" ..in everything wonderful!
Just ask yourself... "What, in Life is composed of 2?" .....daaah!!
ALL THAT IS LIFE!!! Question it.. ALL!!
microvantastic 1 month ago
In the novel "Flat land", a 2 dimensional square being is visited by a 3 dimensional cube being and the cube takes the square back through all the lower dimensions. The fact that the square (or anything external) existed was a "contradiction" to the zero dimensional point. The fact that the square could go around the one dimensional line characters was a contradiction to them. The fact that the cube could go through the center of the square was a contradiction to him. Now let's look at our world
7F0X7 1 month ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
@7F0X7 When there is an actual contradiction, then there is a serious problem: Two conflicting statements cannot both be believed in. God asks us to belief in Him and certain things about Him - if any of these things He presents as a contradiction, we cannot be expected to believe in it. Just one of many contradictions in the doctrine of the Trinity is the idea of the "incarnation," the "God-man" with the "hypostatic union." None of these terms are found in the Bible, but ignoring that...
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7F0X7 Here's the big problem: God cannot be tempted. Now, you can play the nature game all you like - He was tempted according to His human nature and not His divine nature etc, but that's not going to work. No matter what form God takes up, He cannot be tempted. It poses a very serious contradiction.
To make this even more clear would be to ask, "Could Jesus have sinned?" See how the dual-nature construct falls apart here?
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
@7F0X7 If Christ couldn't have sinned, He wasn't really tempted, and as a result He wasn't really just like us in every manner - He would've just been playing a role or act. He would not have really been a man - and that simply would not do as the perfect sacrifice.
On the flip-side, if Jesus could have sinned, then He would not be God, for if God sinned, He would cease to exist as God, for God is good - all the time.
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7F0X7 The definition of God means He is incorruptible; He can do absolutely no wrong. If God was tempted to do wrong, we would then have a different God - One that is contrary to the Bible's portrayal of Him.
If you are totally honest with yourself, you will see that you cannot simultaneously believe that Jesus could really have sinned and couldn't have sinned. He was either fallible, or infallible. He was either man, or He wasn't.
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
@OneTruthFinder I'll expand on the problem. In Matthew, Jesus is "tempted", yet God should have no desire to sin. If Jesus is God the Son and simply would never sin even though his human flesh was tempted then it would imply that there is a standard of righteousness that is above (or at least outside of) God. On the other hand, If God is always right simply by definition of being God, then Jesus's temptation would be meaningless since his choice would be right no matter what.
7F0X7 3 weeks ago
@OneTruthFinder I have to say that I respect you a lot for accurately explaining this problem about the character of God. I've wrestled with the issue for years and when I bring up the issue to my Christian friends, they always fail to see the logical incongruence. But you are broad minded enough to see it and regardless of your beliefs, you've been fair in your illustration. I'd actually like to talk to you more about it.
7F0X7 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7F0X7 Your comparison is rather shallow. You're comparing one type of existence with another type. It would be like saying a spirit being can pass through a physical being. That's no contradiction. To us, it's a mystery how spirit beings work, but it isn't a contradiction. A contradiction is where you have two contradictory statements. This example is poor, at best. We can believe in the cube and the square without any violation to the law of non-contradiction.
OneTruthFinder 3 weeks ago
@OneTruthFinder What you said about my flat land analogy makes sense, but it would be a contradiction to a 2 dimensional being if I put one of my fingers through his world where he could see and another of my fingers next to the other and told him that both things he saw were me at once. He would see (from his perspective), 2 separate entities, but they were really just two different parts of me. It's a contradiction to him because he doesn't know that 3 dimensions exists.
7F0X7 3 weeks ago
christian mathematics- 1=3. Would you swap $3 for $1, if so please please i am willing to help you out.
arcz10 1 month ago
@arcz10
Right on the money!! lol
Liberals are not the only ones who drink the so-called "cool-aid".
Yeah...I guess with the mind anything is possible...& most often abomidable.
microvantastic 1 month ago
@microvantastic when it comes to green backs , no christian so far want to swap $1 for $3. I guess i have not spoken in toungues or healed anyone yet. Then maybe i can convince a christian to defy logic and believe that $1+$1+$1= $1.
arcz10 1 month ago
@arcz10 you totally missed the point. Your finite thinking is showing.
Ajntb2Sli 1 month ago
@Ajntb2Sli u had too much egg nog mate
arcz10 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrJBS56 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrJBS56 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrJBS56 1 month ago
Here's a question: What is communication?
Answer:
1.the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.
2.something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted.
3.a document or message imparting news, views, information, etc.
Here's another question: Is God omniscient?
Answer: Yes
If God needs to talk to God then He is found to not be omniscient. But if He is omniscient and you persist He does talk to Himself, then this is just an act that He does for us
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder do you believe in the trinity?
jamaicanification 1 month ago
@jamaicanification No. And neither do you truly believe it either. No one can, because it is a contradiction. When something is a contradiction, you can't honestly believe in it. Let me explain: Suppose you believe you're hungry and totally full at the exact same time. What are you going to do? Eat a meal or not? You'll have to pick one, because you only have two options. And the moment you do act upon one premise, you're immediately denying the other premise to be true.
OneTruthFinder 1 month ago
@OneTruthFinder Those examples are fine and all, but where is the contradiction in the Trinity? Can you point it out instead of saying its a contradiction?
jamaicanification 1 month ago
@jamaicanification Sure can: Take John 17:3. (Just one of many examples.) See what you can do with that.
OneTruthFinder 1 month ago
@OneTruthFinder There is always a 3rd option. I can go puke out everything I just ate to make more room for the thing I want to eat. I chose one, but denied it at the same time, in order to make room for the other. The Trinity is not a contradiction. Just because YOU don't believe it, does not mean that its contradictory. The evidence of the Tri-une God is there. search for it.
Ajntb2Sli 1 month ago
@Ajntb2Sli Ah, nicely done there - so you believed you were full, and that's why you puked out your previous food, hence making the first premise, the one that you thought you were hungry, to be false.
Contradictions exist regardless of what you, me or anyone else believes. No one can say, in the absolute sense of temperature, that the sun is both hot and cold at the exact same time. Impossible.
Sorry, but the Trinity is a contradiction. If you'd like, I can PM you to elaborate.
OneTruthFinder 1 month ago
@OneTruthFinder Question: Do you talk to your father? Answer: I'm hoping its a yes.
1. Just in the same way that you talk to your dad is the same concept that God the Father talks to His son, Jesus the God, in so far as God the Holy Spirit speaks to believers. The concept of the Familly structure is there. As well as rank in family. Each have characteristics. Each has their part in the family. But all are within the same family. Just like you!
Ajntb2Sli 1 month ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ajntb2Sli Of course I talk to my father, as well as my Father in Heaven.
God the Father talks to His human Son. He talks to all His children.
Jesus isn't God; He's the Word of God - big difference. God speaks through Him to His children.
Family structure is there, of course. Those who believe in Christ are begotten of God. We are His children, and brethren of Jesus Christ. No need for mental Trinitarian gymnastics to understand that.
OneTruthFinder 4 weeks ago
As for the other "philosophical problem": Before creation existed, time didn't exist so you can't say that there was a time when there was nothing for God to love. Furthermore, before creation physically existed, it already existed in the mind of God. God is both in time, at the beginning, present and the end, as well as simultaneously outside of time.
Mr Zacharias is using clever language and philosophy, but bearing his propositions based on false premises from his own perspective, not God's.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
What rubbish. "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." 1 Cor 2:1 (KJV)
"guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”" 1 Tim 6:20 (ESV)
This man resorts to Greek philosophy to explain a "diversity in unity".
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
Good word!! The Lord continue to bless your ministry Ravi! Cause:Diversity in Unity Effect:Diversity in Unity!
His2ndComingisNear 4 months ago
This 3 in 1 God is from satan.
oOADROo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oOADROo get behind me satan!
crass1truth 4 months ago
So the Son of God is God. Does that mean the Son is also the Father? Nice try Ravi Zacharias. I was a former Oneness and Trinitarian believer myself until I learned that the early apostolic fathers identified a distinction between the Son and the Father and identified Jesus as God but NOT in the same way the Father is God. I'm with Newton and Arius. ARIAN!
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, Huh? You're an Arian? I thought you were Oneness? And if you think Arianism was believed as an orthodox truth prior to the 4th Century you are sadly mistaken since no such belief existed, and don't say Origen because his terminlogy is defined by his system of theology and thought.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos Polycarp. The apostles and post-apostolic fathers called Jesus Lord and the Father God. They did call Jesus God (Theos or Powerful one) to show people that Jesus was their king. The Roman emperors called themselves Theos or Powerful one as well. Jesus is God but not in the same way the Father is. The Father is the True God. The Son of God cannot be His own Son. That's ridiculous!
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, The Ante-Nicene Fathers called Jesus God (theos) and believed he was theos because it is what the Bible explicitly teaches (John 1:1;1:18, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 1 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, Philippians 2:5-11). The Pagan use of theos is irrelavant. This 'theos' is identified with the honors, names, and attributes of YHWH implying strongly Jesus is theos as the Father is theos and not the same way as Moses or a Roman emperor was.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, "Polycarp. The apostles and post-apostolic fathers called Jesus Lord and the Father God. They did call Jesus God (Theos or Powerful one) to show people that Jesus was their king."
There is no way you can substantiate this, it's just a way to circumvent the fact that the Ante-Nicene Fathers strongly attested in their writings to Jesus as Ho Theos. Search through Ignatius' epistles and Irenaus work 'Against Heresies".
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos I can show you verses in the book which disprove Jesus as the true God or you can feel free to remain a Hell-bound Gnostic. Most of Ignatius's works have been doctored by Trinitarians over time. Look up TheMessianicGentile's channel. He can probably answer your questions. Does Jesus ever claim to be God? Why does Satan try to tempt him if he knew how fruitless it would be to lead God into sin? So much for overcoming sin, huh? Is Jesus the Son of God? And if God is a Trinity, He is th
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, Actually that's not true, 7 of Ignatius epistles are authentic the others have interpolations and are in dispute. Ephesians is original.
"TheMessianicGentile's channel"
I don't think he can answer my questions since he is no better in knowledge than you on this subject, I've seen his comments and his knowledge of Church History is full of holes and errors. I responded to some of his claims on you channel but you deleted them.
God Bless, I don't believe you have a demon
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos e Son of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! You have a demon influencing your mind. Acts 7:55-56, Jesus is on GOD'S right hand! God=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oh, oops! You just denied Jesus was God! LOL!
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@LogosTheos As for the other Genesis verses you bring up, they are referring to God, I won't dispute that. BUT, I will show you a verse which shows that it proves NOT A THING! Daniel 2:36 "Now we shall..." If referring to oneself in plural "proves" a "Trinity" then Daniel should be a "Trinity". On elohim...elohim can be used as singular or plural so that also is bigotry on the part of Trinitarian logic.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, "Daniel 2:36 "Now we shall..." If referring to oneself in plural "proves" a "Trinity" then Daniel should be a "Trinity". "
The solution here is context, who are the "we" in Daniel 2:36 vs the "we" in Genesis 1:26? And remember this is not the only binitarian text I cited from the OT. Elohim is identified by context, the only Elohim that created man in his image is God, "us" identifies the plurality within one God.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
fernandop1 5 months ago 2
Hos 13:4
tongsau 5 months ago
This man is a true theologian
xxcafe 5 months ago
Why are there some that say that there is no Holly Spirit? They only believe in the Father and Son and the Holly Spirit is just Gods power n spirit and shouldnt be considered as a 3rd. That there should only be the presence of God and Jesus, 1 and 2... Whats up with that??? They claim to go to the original Greek scriptures not tainted by translation or scholars... Or are they tainting the translation themselves now???
WillyEMS85 5 months ago
Source: Theophilus to Autolycus, Ch. XV, OF THE FOURTH DAY
LogosTheos 6 months ago
First of all Matthew was changed from "in the name of Jesus". This is a well known fact. And the church had recognized it did change the baptism from the original. Catholic (Encyclopedia II pg 263). And pope Benedict had made the statement the trinity came from Rome. You want to talk about the councils? They had to vote on what Christianity was to be! In other words the pagan converts created a new religion by popular opinion. You have yet pointed one thing that refers to a trinity.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou, You add to the Encyclopedia, the text has always remained the same as 2nd-3rd Century Christians quotations from Cyprian, Irenaus, Tertullian, and Justin attest to. If you read Cyprian works it was because gnostic heretics kept baptizing in "In Jesus name" causing believers to get confused between heresy and orthodoxy so the Matthean formula given by Christ was used more.
LogosTheos 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou, Theophilus the Bishop of Antioch (180 A.D.) "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."
Theophilus uses the three days prior to creation of the stars as being analogous to the nature of God as a Trinity. That's primitive trinitarian thought in the 2nd century long before any "Roman Catholic council".
LogosTheos 6 months ago
@LogosTheos
You assume that these Greek speaking and educated people obtained the triune god(s) from early Christians.
I say it was Greek mythology that they used.
Example Plato stated a good three hundred years earlier describing god(s)
(1) The “first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe; (2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and (3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit”
They twisted it into a ball to help describe Jesus's divinity.
onemarktwoyou 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou, Liar, you're not making an error you are lying without checking the veracity of your assertions. This is fallacy of equivocation since you don't properly identify these "Greek speakers" by name. If you're referring to 2nd Century theologians they never used Greek mythology since they were been killed and persectued by the pagans who held these views. They did borrow terminology from Plato, Stotic and other philsophers but only if it was consistent with Biblical truth.
LogosTheos 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou, This is just is a lame attempt to try to fallaciously equivocate Greek paganism with Trinitarian theology. Platonic thought is nothing like the Trinity and is hostile to an incarnation of a supreme God in the Flesh, it is more like Gnosticism which is influenced by Platonism itself, Platonic thought is more transcendent when viewing the nature of God(s). You have already been utterly refuted by me and Wunji throught the Spirit so stop responding with lame arguments.
LogosTheos 6 months ago
@LogosTheos
You haven't stated or proved anything except the damage that dogma does to a religion. No one questions that G-d has a spirit. The argument is that G-d is not a box of legos. There is no separation of the spirit and G-d, nor his embodiment as a man. There is one G-d, not three as described by your Greek theology. You can accept Greek mythology as part of your doctrine. I will follow the early Christians. Who never heard of the triune god.
onemarktwoyou 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou " I will follow the early Christians. Who never heard of the triune god."
you either don't know anything about the early Christians or are an outright liar.
the first early Christians were the apostles themselves who spoke clearly in the Epistles and Gospels they wrote of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
those early Christians who were the first fruits of what the apostles preached didn't deviate from what they wrote and preached about it.
HermitintheRain 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou, Merely asserting what you believe without substance to back up it means absolutely nothing.
"There is one G-d, not three as described by your Greek theology."
This is a prime example, you have already been utterly refuted by the 2nd and 3rd century quotations not only affirming the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 but that early Christians indeed held on to the Trinity in primitive forms of thought. I will dialogue with you no further, leave that darkness of disbelief...
LogosTheos 6 months ago
@LogosTheos
You reject all the main stream scholars that state that Matthew(28:19) was change if not just right out created. And the admission by the catholic church that they did baptize in the name of Jesus. And two early popes also rejected the traditional trinity theology. Both matt (28:19) and 1john (5:7) are in fact known corruptions. And 1John 5:7 is the only solid triune verse in the bible. You would rather follow dogma than scripture.
onemarktwoyou 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou can you please give me 2 scholars who said that this has been changed because I have just scanned through 9 different biblical commentaries and have found no evidence to support your claim.
HaShim383 6 months ago
@HaShim383, He's going to keep on ranting and complaning to save his heretical pride. Check the previous pages to see how he got smoked by me and another fellow by the grace of Lord Jesus Christ.
LogosTheos 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LogosTheos Modalsim is truth! Where was the Father when the Son died?
John 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.
In Jesus Christ!
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@HaShim383
I don't have to much time.
babylon-the-great.xanga.com/703151682/item/
This is a web site I ran across when I was confronted on the subject and started me exploring it. I don't know your religious back ground but this area where I started.
onemarktwoyou 6 months ago
@LogosTheos The Father (Creator personality) The Son (Redeemer personality) Holy Spirit (The Revelator)
There is also Duanity which decrees Holy Spirit is just the Spirit of the Father and according to John 14:10 The Father is in Jesus so Jesus is The Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit!
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, "John 14:10 The Father is in Jesus so Jesus is The Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit!"
This is a form of monarchianism or modalism which developed in the 3rd Century around Rome based on a misunderstanding of terms like "persona" being promoted by theologians such as Tertullian and Hippolytus. No, John 14:10 doesn't means Jesus is the Father, this is called mutual indwelling, the Father and Son can also dwell in believers (John 14:20)
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos Well, the Father was in the Son. So worshipping the Son means we worship the Father and worshipping the Father means we worship the Son. So arguably, the Son is also the very embodiment of the Father. It wasn't until after (John 14:20) Jesus raised from the dead that the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) was able to enter into us.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, You are being inconsistent with your oneness theology (God is one person who occupies three offices Father/Son/Holy Spirit), The Holy Spirit is the Father/Son according to modalism, John 14:20 demonstrates that just because the Father dwells in me that doesn't mean I'm the Father. You seem to be interpreting this passage in light of a distortion of Colossians 2:9. Also you pressupose what you have yet to prove, that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth as a distinct person.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos The Trinity states the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. You want scriptural proof that all three are the same? All right. Isaiah 9:6: Jesus is referred to as "Eternal Father". Oh! Jesus is the Son and the Father now? Luke 1:30-35: The Holy Spirit IMPREGNATES MARY! The Holy Spirit is the FATHER?!? So the Father=Son and the Father=The Holy Spirit and the Son=Jesus so all three equal JESUS!
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, Acutally the Trinity affirms that their is One God who exist eternally as 3 persons, not 1 person or offices as demonstrated by the Greek text of Matthew 28:19. Eternal Father doesn't mean Jesus is the Father, only that he has the chracteristics of God, the underlining Hebrew could read "Father of Eternity" as well. John 16:7 shows that the Holy Spirit is distinct from Christ, since Christ sends him. I have no clue who you can take Luke 1:30-35 to mean Jesus is the Holy Spirt
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos Question: why do the apostles baptize in the name of Christ? You see, all offices actually belong to Christ. The doctrine of Trinity has merely proposed a solution as to how it can be that all of the work Christ did on earth somehow work out in this. BUT, from reading the Bible, the true nature of God is that Christ=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They don't act as one. One acts as them. So, Jesus is His own Father, our Comforter, and the Son of the Living God. Hope that explained thin
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, " The doctrine of Trinity has merely proposed a solution as to how it can be that all of the work Christ did on earth somehow work out in this"
Actuallly it's the other way around, the modalist proposed this around Rome in the 3rd century to explain how their is ONE GOD and 3 divine beings and attack Tertullians terminology. Their high emphasis on the unity of God destroyed the subsistence of the Son and his pre-existence which led to the Church condeming it as Heresy.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos No. Tertullian made an attempt to attack the oneness theology at the time. The Trinitarian formula turned out to be a whole mess of gurbledigurk that started leading people away from the faith. Some of the problems that I have noticed as well as others have pointed out, is that they sometimes refer to distinctions such as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The problem is that the thing is so confusing that it can often lead to flat-out polytheism.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
Comment removed
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, This has been the problem with Modalism from it's birth, accusing Trinitarians of polytheism because of thier terminology. In order for modalist theology to work Orthodox Christological truths had to be denied, mainly the preexistence and subsistence of the Son which are present as a orthodox truth throughout the writings of Ignatius, Irenaus, Athenagoras, Novatian, Cyprian and more. That's why is was condemned as a heresy which failed to explain the unity of the Godhead.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos What one needs to do is propose a formula that has no contradictions but mere mortals can only come close. Although the oneness formula may be the most accurate for now. Omnipresence is displayed, it isn't sacrificed. All the glory be to Christ, etc. Furthermore, when we see the baptismal formula given in Matthew 28:19, and then see that the apostles are baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, we realize that these are actually titles given to Christ.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, Oneness theology never existed before the 3rd Century, it spawned as a minority in and around Rome, it was also pretty much non-existent in the East except for a few Sabellians in Alexandria. We have no documentation of such beliefs as modalism before the 3rd century. The Orthodox belief has always being the pre-existence and subsistence of the Son. Rome is known for putting too much emphasis on the unity of the Godhead even though most did not subscribe to Monarchianism.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos You need to understand oneness theology then. Oneness does believe in the preexistence of Jesus and teaches Him as the God of the OT. Oneness teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are titles for the same person. I do know that the Trinity is monotheistic. I used to be a Trinitarian. Anyway, oneness sees the Son as the incarnate God. Jesus doesn't really become the Son until the incarnation. Holy Spirit is Jesus still coming in the flesh and Father is Him in heaven.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, The Son is the human nature and office of the the preexistent Father according to Oneness. So when you say the Son preexisted you mean the Father, not the Son.This view is refuted by binitarian passages in the Old Testament (Gen 1:26, Gen 19:24, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 48:12-16). Early Christians constantly quoted Genesis 1:26 as a proof text of Christ eternal preexistence and subsistence apart from the Father. This is easily found in Irenaus',, Clement of Rome or Barnabas' writings
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@LogosTheos Kay...1. what's wrong with us saying the Son is the Father incarnate? Jesus even said the Father was in Him (John 14:10). 2. What's wrong with us saying the Father and Son are one? Jesus even said so Himself (John 10:30). As for Psalm 110:1, read ALL of Acts 2. It's just a reiteration. It does not suggest duality or triality in the Godhead whatsoever since the Godhead is Christ (Col 2:9). Another interpretation on Gen. 19:24 is "sky" and not necessarily a second Lord.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@LogosTheos Oneness theology stresses God's omnipresence. I will say this in regards to the Trinitarian formula. Saying that only the Son died CAN e dangerous because that CAN lead to polytheism. So we need to understand the fullness of the Godhead died. That means Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@LogosTheos If you have any more questions on oneness theology, I'm pretty certain I can find the answers for you.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@BIBLEisMARKofBEAST Any reason for your harsh attitude toward the words which were God-breathed?
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Here's a suggestion. Use the Matthew 28:19 baptism to promote oneness. Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Who did the apostles baptize in the name of? Christ. And watch the argument backfire on them.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@LogosTheos gs.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@LogosTheos 1 Corinthians 10:4 states JESUS was the God of the OT.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, Yes I agree, so?
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, John 14:20, "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."
LogosTheos 5 months ago
You can only KNOW Jesus by the Holy Spirit that He sent to lead us by after His resurrection. If you are still going by the bible then you are still under the curse of the law that Jesus died to redeem us from.
The BIBLE is the MARK of the BEAST.
BIBLEisMARKofBEAST 7 months ago
@BIBLEisMARKofBEAST This is completely ignorant of what we understand from scripture. The same scripture that you like to quote. People must have a knowledge of the gospel first to be saved (Rom 10) Where does this gospel come from? Ah, from the same scripture you love to say is the mark of the Beast! This is some form of "Taxi cab" fallacy. You hop in to quote the bible in support of your view, but then hop out of the bible and say that it is the mark of the beast - nonsensical!
Wunji1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wunji1 The bible is the history of my people. The Jews were controlled by the holy scriptures under the old covenant. Satan took it and controls people with it by telling them that it is the word of god. The only thing on earth that Satan cannot use is the Holy Ghost. When I refer to the bible, it's like referring to George Washington at Valley Forge, it has no authority. THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST.
BIBLEisMARKofBEAST 7 months ago
A tad over my head, But I understand the Trinity
FeignofCordor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
The trinity was a pagan belief. It was brought in by the early christian converts. Before the second century no one thought G-d was three. The crime here is that Christianity was highjacked by pagans, and this is where all the dogmas came from.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Thats incorrect
gweems828 7 months ago
@gweems828
What? Did the early church get more dogma from other sources? Or did they just make up some of their own?
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou The doctrine of the trinity can be clearly seen in scripture and the early church saw it too. Some people think it wasn't believed because the creeds happened late 3rd early 4th century.. Thats when false doctrines started creeping in and the truth needed to be clearly stated. Not to mention prior to that Christians were struggling just to survive never mind openly meet and write. Interestingly enough it was to defend the manhood of Jesus not His Deity. Opposite of ppl today
gweems828 7 months ago
@gweems828
NO! there is no doctrine to indicate a triune. For time savings, if you are going to argue the fact, can you state which bible you will reference. All credible apologist agree that the trinity is not in the bible.
Did Jesus give this? No. Did the prophets come to this? No. Did the disciples preach this? No. Did Moses get this on Mount Sinai? No.
It came about with pagan converts. In this area there was a number of surrounding religions that did believe in multiplicities.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou The word trinity is not but the doctrine comes straight from the text. This might help u understand /watch?v=7tLDU6v3V60&feature=channel_video_title
gweems828 7 months ago
@gweems828
I watched the video.The Hebrew was out of context. Example: Elohim, If you check the usage of the word though out the bible and how it is used you will find it is majestic in nature, in that example he gave. This confusion is done with people trying to do what you call a "mechanical translation". Often times it is the first step, but the bible translates the bible. When you compare usage of the words in other areas and in what context they are used and when they are used it is clear.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I understand the point u are trying to make. And i thank you for your thoughtful response but i must respectfully disagree. Even if i were to concede that one point which i do not, i still feel the doctrine stands as a hole based on a multitude of other scripture. I pray that God will align us both with His perfect truth.
gweems828 7 months ago
@gweems828 Yeah...the Hebrew word echad used in that contaxt means "one (numeric)" and cannot be used to prove a Trinity. Neither can Elohim.
Danielezerable 5 months ago
@Danielezerable, If you have access to a library or enough money to buy on amazon please get Dr. J.N.D. Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines", he is a well known patristic authority. He has a chapter called "THIRD CENTURY TRINITARIANISM" which includes the development of Monarchianism and other Christogical heresies, Kelly also gives you primary documentation in the footnotes which you can look up on Philip Schaffs "Ante-Nicene Father" Volumes, to see the truth for yourself.
LogosTheos 5 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Wow! You are actually going to say "All credible apologist(s) agree that the trinity is not in the bible." ??? That has to be the most fallacious statement I have heard in a long time. In essence you are saying that anyone who disagrees isn't a "credible" apologist - lol Do you seriously believe what you type? Do you say to yourself after you have typed something "Yep, that sounds true?" This is laughable, and shows your ignorance. Try thinking before you speak!
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1
Show me one passage that uses the word trinity.
No apologist has said the trinity is found in the bible!
They said it is a "revelation". Given to the early church fathers. Centuries after Jesus put on the cross. Check the time lines before you rebuke someone. No one in the first century assumed its existence.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou If the Trinity is "revealed" in scripture, it is still scripture. The concept of the trinity is all over the bible. Of course the word "Trinity" is no where to be found - lol. You don't need a scholar to tell you that. Read it for yourself. The writers of the NT felt no need to call it the "Trinity", but the reality of what that word conveys is expressly written within the text of scripture.
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Even Jesus commanded that the disciples were to make other disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). What do you think that command implies? What did Isaiah understand and he wrote in Isaiah 45:5 that the "Lord is one, apart from me there is no God", and also record Isaiah 9:6 that a Son is given, and that His name shall be called "Mighty God"...? Christianity is based on this truth. This is why the Jews would not receive Him.
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou The point? The Jews would not receive Jesus as God because of the Shema so they attempted to stone Him. Because Jesus was accepted as God by those who believed, the nature of the Godhead with regards to its unity/diversity was implicit. Therefore, It is "splitting hairs" to say that the word "Trinity" is not in the bible. The early Christians believed this, as it was the basis for faith in Christ. To say otherwise ignores the evidence...
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1
If you want to argue the trinity pick a bible version. I suggest you pick the KJV for this, it has more compelling stance for the trinity. Because the sources the niv and others uses are corrupt and less friendly for your argument. Also research early Christianity and the Trinity. You'll find that in the year 325 they had so many pagan concepts that they needed to sort out and to figure which ones they were going to keep. And please stop calling 3rd century Christians "early".
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou You have obviously missed the point here, which is not surprising as you do not believe in the trinity. The word "moral" or "morality" does not appear even once in all of scripture, yet to find anyone, save Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Singer, Shermer, or any other Atheist out there is notably supersillious. Lastly, you are ignorant regarding the early church. I suggest reading Clement of Rome's letter to the church at Corinth. BTW, he was a 1st century bishop...
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1 Correction, "yet to find anyone who does not draw from the text a sense of morality, save".... sorry :(
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Further, I, and everyone else here, would appreciate it if you would answer my points. Why did Jesus command the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Would did Isaiah speak say in one place that God is one, and yet also say that a son is given, and that he would be called "Mighty God"? I need an answer... thanks...
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1 correction, why did Isaiah say...
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1
Which bible version are you wanting to use? I'd appreciate a common ground for this. It does make a difference. I am willing to argue this on your home ground. But also it will aid in later discussion on the subject. And second it would help to know if you believe every word in the bible is inspired. Or do you translation mistakes occur. All I'm trying to do is save time. You just let me no what hill to charge up.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@Wunji1
Alright if you don't want to be on the same page. The commentaries on (Matt 28:19) States that it was changed from "in the name of Jesus." Also the manuscripts old enough to show this, someone ripped out the pages. And the catholic (encyclopedia II page 263) states they changed the baptism to the three. But early letters give us the knowledge that it was changed. If you study the reasons for the 325 council of Nicea they had to decide how many gods there was, 1,2,3,7,13,ect...(3 won).
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I'm not sure where you get all of your information, but the two earliest extant MSS. (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) both have the threefold name phrase. Maybe you would say "Well, that is still centuries after Christ. Ok, then let's move backwards from the MSS. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in "A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII" references the baptism account. Cyprian (200-258AD), in the "Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian" references the same. Continuing...
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Hippolytus (170-236), in Fragments: "Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus" references Matthew 28:19; Turullian (155-230), who was the first person to use the word "Trinity", in "On Baptism, Chapter XIII" (c.200) references the account; Even Ignatius (35/50 - 98/117), in his epistle to the "Philippians", references Matthew 28:19. I have studied the decisions of all the council as expressed by each canon.
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I have also read the accounts of the Council by Eusebius and the like. To say that the bishops has to decide between "1, 2, 3, 7, 13, etc." is absurd. The error of Arius only served to define in the creed what was the common understanding by the overwhelming majority of the bishops, and that by even those not present. The issue was one of the substance of Christ with the Father as the "trinity" was already assumed. Arius sought to disconnect what has already been connected.
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Plainly, Arius thought much like the Jews as he maintained that none could equal God. Yet, he believed in a lower form of Christ, and so sought to make that distinction a foundational premise. He failed miserably for reasons that can be adduced from what has already been said...
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou So, the understanding of Matthew 28:19 as interpolated is clearly a liberal bias to the otherwise indubitable evidence.
How about Isaiah that has been quoted? How about Zechariah 12:10? There are plenty of verses that could be cited. Would you care to refute every single one?
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1
I'll assume Isaiah 44:3. Because Zec(12:10) and Isaiah states that G-d has a spirit does not prove the triune. Next you could screw up the Hebrew and state that genesis 1:1 with Elohim. I notice you didn't point out 1John5:7? That's right you use the corrupt text of the vaticanus. Because documents were not used thus preserved, does not prove the writings are older, but the paper is by the lack of use. Erasmus had a heck of a time getting a copy of the vaticanus.
onemarktwoyou 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Why do you continually avoid my comments without responding to them? I gave no less than four paragraphs with support for Matthew 28:19 all the way back to the first century, and not a peep from you about it. Why? You switch to passages that I haven't even quoted as if I was using them for support. I merely quoted the two MSS. to show that the correct version of the passage appears in the 4th century. This was simply a starting point. I haven't said anything about Elohim.
Wunji1 7 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Nor, have I mentioned 1 John 5:7 which everyone knows was added later. No one disputes that so why are you introducing things that have not even been discussed here? Please respond to the evidence that I have posted - namely, the early citations of Matthew 28:19 with Ignatius (who knew John the apostle I might add) in the first century. It makes no difference if the Vaticanus has been corrupted but the Apocrypha and verses like 1 John 5:7. We count those things that agree..
Wunji1 7 months ago
@Wunji1, 1 John 5:7 doesn't even matter since Cyprian in the 3rd Century in his Treatise 1:6 said : "... If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?"
This was an allusion to the 3 witnesses. Christians were already using this language prior
LogosTheos 6 months ago
@LogosTheos Agreed! My point exactly - great quote from Cyprian! I don't think onemark does his homework :(
Wunji1 6 months ago
@onemarktwoyou In other words, we know that those things corrupt the text of the Vaticanus, but the rest of the text that isn't agrees with those texts that haven't been corrupted, and Matt 28:19 agrees. Further - you have totally missed Isaiah and Zechariah. The reference was not to God's spirit, but the reference to the SON! Your attempt to redirect is showing that you do not have a rebuttal to what has been said which argues strongly in favor of the proposed view :)
Wunji1 7 months ago
he rarely EVER uses scripture to defend the trinity, you know why cuz its not there hes assuming its there and tries to make sense of somting that cant be back by scripture, unless of course you twist it. hes a WICH( sooth sayer)hes a pile of bullshit.
NazariusThe7th 7 months ago
@NazariusThe7th : I would Say.. Trinity Couldn't be understood properly by anyone in the world.. But to explain to you in simple terms.. For example there is "Sun" which is one, but it gives Light and Heat.. in the same there is god.. Light as Jesus and Heat as Holy spirit.. hope u understood my point.. sry abt bad english!! :)
blues2sim 7 months ago
@blues2sim what is the holy spirit anyway?
AnImmortalEra 7 months ago
@AnImmortalEra : If u believe that ur body is the Temple.. then some one should be in there.. either Evil Or God.. Means if u follow evil then no place for god.. But if u follow Truth, the Living God, then God will Live in you. How ? By his spirit which he has given freely to everyone who belives in Jesus. Once he is in u, he will guide u, teach u etc., take u closer to God. And u wouldn't sin any more. My opinion!! :)
blues2sim 7 months ago
@blues2sim if god lives in you, you can still sin because man is not perfect. that is why god came and died in the first place. With god in you gives you the strnght and will to try not to sin, without man sinning why would people ask god for forgiveness?
tylerpurugg23 7 months ago
@tylerpurugg23 : Yes i agree that man is not perfect. God gives u the strength to overcome sin. Because god forgives, it doesn't mean that u eligible to sin and take advantage. If god really lives in u, and u have intimate relationship with god. Why would u sin ?
blues2sim 7 months ago
@blues2sim It would be hopeless to try to convince you that what you are saying is absolute rubbish. But at least I can tell you why. Because there is no magic in the world, all your belief in creation and miracles is founded on sand. The bible is a plagarised collection of Iron Age myths which primitive people wrote because they had no better explanation. It is immoral, and the cause of terrible conflict,
Deny it all and live this life free and with affection.
Imagine there's no heaven.
Peace.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@StrumstickJoe : My dear friend, i was in your shoes(Atheist) for sometime.. It would be hopless for me to convince u that i m believer of god now.
But u can't expect everything to be proved/or should have proof.
blues2sim 7 months ago
@StrumstickJoe :Can u prove that "bible is a plagarised collection of Iron Age myths" ??
Why don't u see that world is prefectly created by God, and everything in it has interlinked with another.
Can u explain why the world / nature is so prefect in it's function ?? can u explain why we have our own thinking capabilities/ WILL power which other creatures don't have ??
Anyways i would definetly say that your are not living freely & u don't have affection or love in your heart.
Peace!
blues2sim 7 months ago
@blues2sim You believe in magic, miracles and the defeat of death. Because of lack of any evidence, I do not.
You must need the magic, and fear death, but I don't.
99% of all the species, including hominids, who have ever lived, have become extinct. Some perfection, eh? Some design!
A dead palestinian (who didn't really exist, but there are myths about him) said things which are bizarre and contradictory. Today he would be put away !
Live one life; do what you can; die and rejoin the stars.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@StrumstickJoe : U have option to believe or not to believe. Please remember that god created everything perfect as he is perfect. But we sinned and was out of Glorious plan of god, which he had for us. Do u have explanation for Natural disasters ?? But in Bible everything was prophesied before it can happen?? Do u think it ws by accident ?? Yes u have on Life and then u die.. But know the truth before u die..
blues2sim 7 months ago
@blues2sim 8 million children die needlessly each year. Perfect.
Tsunamis kill thousands at random. Perfect.
Cancer and aids makes victims suffer before they die.Perfect.
Thousands of children are born deformed. Perfect.
Read my posts. I read yours before I decided what to write. You didn't, you are just spouting faith.
It is immoral and despicable to believe in your vindictive deity.
Peace and clarity to you.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@StrumstickJoe : I understood your Point, why those things happen ? I suggest u read "Sadhu Sundar Singh Book collections" which talks abt all these things. And Jesus gives answers to these questions. May be i m not a good explainer. But God explains it clearly. Peace!!!
blues2sim 7 months ago
@blues2sim You're a very polite christian.
I thank you for that.
If they were all like you the world wouldn't be in such danger.
I have recently had dialogue with a couple of christians who became aggressive as soon as their faith was questioned. If I was OTT with you I apologise. You don't deserve it.
But they did.
Peace to you.
I will look up your recommendation; and I suggest for you: "ZOMGitscriss umbrella atheist" on YTube
Goodbye
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@blues2sim Christianity is a club of the willfully ignorant. We have your Bible as proof of its failure. It fails morally by sanctioning genocide, celebrating infanticide and tolerating slavery. It fails logically with self contradiction and historical inaccuracies. Above all it is immoral in the extreme; believers have to pick carefully to find their "love and salvation" in it..
Don't tell lies to children.
The soul is nothing, and nothing survives. Peace.
Live well, help those around you.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago