The elephant named Trinity.~

[Eleanor]

Yes it does.

The narrative in John 1:1-14 in, in large part, personification. That's the best way to interpret John 1

Why didn't I think of that?

With that rule, I can make all Scripture agree with any error.

 

[Eleanor]

Appeal to Ignorance.

And Paul explains what you call "ignorance". . .

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God (as in Jn 1:1, 14), for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually (not logically) discerned." (1 Co 2:14)

There is no such thing as “human” reasoning or logic. It’s either logical or not, rational or irrational.

There is also no such thing as donkey reasoning and logic.

Nothing is more irrational, less logical than 3-is-1-ism. You presume knowledge of something beyond your human understanding. It’s so ridiculous!

Your position is, even though I cannot explain it rationally and logically, I assert it is nevertheless true. Your dogma makes our God given mind an enemy to understand the Giver!

Yes, that God could be beyond human comprehension is indeed ridiculous to the blind fallen human mind without the Spirit (1 Co 2:14),
as ridiculous as is unbelief of the word of God in Jn 1:1, 14.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

No it doesn't. It is simply speaking of Jesus, We also say the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God.

Right and all that "simply speaking" is a violation of Language Usage and the trinity doctrine. If there is a 3-person committee it is simply wrong to refer to one member AS IF they are the entire committee.

"For us, there is only one God, the Father." is not simply speaking but a repudiation of the trinity doctrine of the highest order. I challenge you to write a stronger anti-trinitarian phrase is as few words.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

And Paul explains what you call "ignorance". . .

Yea, you are assuming your doctrine is right even though everything goes against it. So funny!

Notice Paul does not teach the trinity.

 

[Runningman]

Why didn't I think of that?

With that rule, I can make all Scripture agree with any error.

Please explain how that is an error or we'll just go back and forth simply saying the other is in error without any explanation.

 

[grace2]

How is that hypocrisy?

You claim to be Jesus' followers yet you dismiss too many of His words in every way.

It is not just doctrines that you made up, your practice is so not of Jesus.

{edited by admin.}

 

[Rella]

Right and all that "simply speaking" is a violation of Language Usage and the trinity doctrine. If there is a 3-person committee it is simply wrong to refer to one member AS IF they are the entire committee.

"For us, there is only one God, the Father." is not simply speaking but a repudiation of the trinity doctrine of the highest order. I challenge you to write a stronger anti-trinitarian phrase is as few words.

"I challenge you to write a stronger anti-trinitarian phrase is as few words." ?????????????/

You are asking a trinity believer to write a support of your anti-Trinity beliefs? Words don't fail me, but my desire to remain on here has closed my mouth on this one.

If there is a 3-person committee it is simply wrong to refer to one member AS IF they are the entire committee.

But every committee had an organizer.

Here are the smelling salts as I am going to use another metaphor that you wont understand. Or actually I would say a parable but am not of the mind this early to weave it into a story.

You have a hand. How do I know this? You can work a keyboard unless you let Siri do all your work.

Hand definition, by Wikik
Extremity at the end of an arm or forelimb
A hand is a prehensile, multi-fingered appendage located at the end of the forearm or forelimb of primates such as humans, chimpanzees, monkeys, and lemurs.

The Trinity is like a hand with five fingers. Though the Trinity has only 3 members the hand has a little, ring, middle, index and thumb making five members to achieve what is needed for the hand to do.

Each one of those fingers can work independently of each other. And while each is capable of doing the same work as the others, it is generally observed that each has its own work to do.

The little finger is the least important one. Yes... fingers have importance .

In times gone past it was important as it showed an aristocratic manner of sipping on a cup of tea to distinguish commoners who characteristically chug whatever. It was necessary for proper tea etiquette.

And the ring, of course performs usually as the name says... It is the one that
most commonly houses the wedding band. While all other fingers can and do at times wear rings, it is the ring that is the most important for
women and on either hand as there are some peoples who place the wedding band on the right hand and not the left. Of course men commonly refuse to wear a wedding band. but they have a finger that one would go on and therefore that does not disqualify the ring finger from the ability of doing its job.

The middle finger. Do I really need to point out the most common use of it? A lot of people will use that to pointedly point out something that they are touching.

The index finger. Well, common sense tells us that without an index finger, it is not so easy to point.

The Thumb. You cannot hitch hike without a thumb. You cannot thumb your noes with out a thumb.

Now while each works independently from the other, it is collectively together that usually determines a hand.
Should one miss a finger, there still are others that will continue, but you cannot have a hand to do what is needed without
the majority of the phalanges attached.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

You are asking a trinity believer to write a support of your anti-Trinity beliefs?

Yup. Humor us. Show us your intelligent and able to establish a rejection criteria.

If you recall, I established an acceptance criteria, what a trinity statement would look like. (I’ve posted it MANY times.)

There is a mountain of evidence that Jesus is NOT God. 1 COR 8:6, ‘For us, there is one God, the Father’ is as strong a repudiation of the trinity as one can imagine. Since you deny this, I challenge you to write a stronger one. What would an anti-trinitarian verse look like that is stronger?

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

establish a rejection criteria.

@grace2 @Runningman, this is one of the most profound realizations I came to a couple of years back.

It’s not the evidence. It’s the lack of a standard, a rejection criteria. No matter the evidence, they deem it not sufficient while failing to establish what would be sufficient.

‘Sorry. Try again.’ Is something one might expect from a Magic 8 Ball, not a moral agent.

 

[grace2]

‘Sorry. Try again.’ Is something one might expect from a Magic 8 Ball, not a moral agent.

What am I supposed to try again?

 

[Arial]

"For us, there is only one God, the Father." is not simply speaking but a repudiation of the trinity doctrine of the highest order. I challenge you to write a stronger anti-trinitarian phrase is as few words.

There is only one God the Father. Trinitarianism does not deny that. How many times do you have to be told before you stop treating it as though we do.

Maybe it is time to look into why the title or name Father is introduced to us by Jesus.

In the OT God have his covenant name to Moses as YHWH.

Ex 3:13-15 Then Moses said to God, (haelohim) "If I come to the people of Israel and say say to them,'The God of your father's has sent me to you
and they ask me, 'What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am. (Ehyeh aser Ehyeh) Say this to them'I AM (Ehyeh) has sent me to you," God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel: "The LORD, (Yahweh) the God (elohe) of your fathers, the God (elohe)of Abraham, the God (elohe) of Isaac, and the God (welohe) of Jacob, has sent me to you,' This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered through all generations.

The ehyeh aser ehyeh means I will be that I will be. But that is not all that God says when He tells Moses what to say to the Hebrews when they ask His name. He also says to tell them Yahweh (the LORD) God (elohim) of their fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sent him. What is the connection and why do we have two names, I AM that I AM and Yahweh.

We find in Gen 12:l that when God was making a covenant with Abraham wherein his descendants would inherit a land and all nations would be blessed through him, God used the name Yahweh. So the I will be what I will be is a statement that God will be to the Israelites in Egypt, as He was to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That their Exodus out of Egypt was the result of a covenant promise. And Yahweh was His covenant name for Israel.

The new covenant mediated and fulfilled in Christ, and those in this new covenant (which is also a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham that through his descendants all nations would be blessed, have a covenant name for God, which is Father. That is what Jesus is teaching (one of the things) when He, as our representative (substitute) in His death, calls God Father. Paul verifies this in Romans 8:15.

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by who we cray, "Abba! Father!"

and

Eph 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Those in Christ through faith in his person and work, are adopted sons and daughters of the Most High, and we call him Father.

 

[grace2]

There is only one God the Father. Trinitarianism does not deny that.

This is so childish claim.

You claim God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

How many times have you been debunked? gazillion times.

Trinun god is not a Christian God. It is a triune god worshipping churches' god.

God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob above all Jesus' God.

 

[Arial]

How many times have you been debunked?

Never.

 

[grace2]

Never.

It was silly of me to ask such a question who are not interested in the Truth.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

There is only one God the Father. Trinitarianism does not deny that. How many times do you have to be told before you stop treating it as though we do.

LOL. Because Trinitarians tend to jettison the Mutual Exclusivity Principle of Logic in favor of dualism.

In trinity land, there is only one dog in Peanuts comic strips - Lassie, Toto and Snoopy. Tell me I'm wrong and you are a trintiarian who confesses Jesus is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God either but only the Father is God. (If you so confess, I wonder why you call yourself a trinitarian?)

For people who are logical, when you say Bob is in the basement, this is taken to be Mutual Exclusive; meaning he is not upstairs or in the attic. Trinitarians say things like Bob is in the basement but is also upstairs AND in the attic.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

What am I supposed to try again?

Make an argument that trinitarians will reject their dogma.

 

[Arial]

@grace2 @Runningman, this is one of the most profound realizations I came to a couple of years back.

It’s not the evidence. It’s the lack of a standard, a rejection criteria. No matter the evidence, they deem it not sufficient while failing to establish what would be sufficient.

‘Sorry. Try again.’ Is something one might expect from a Magic 8 Ball, not a moral agent.

When you had that basic "epiphany" you deem profound, surely you were standing in front of a mirror and there was a finger pointing back at you.

 

[grace2]

Make an argument that trinitarians will reject their dogma.

They will never do that.

That's why I make statements, correcting their heresy.

that's how I spread the Truth to the world.

it is Jesus' followers' responsibility to spread the Truth to the world.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

What is the connection and why do we have two names, I AM that I AM and Yahweh.

"I am" is not a name and everyone but trinitarians know this. The verse in question does not make the claim that is Jesus' God's name. It is the next verse, where he actually uses the word "name" that contains his name, YHWH.

If someone asks me what I do for a living and I say, "I'm in between jobs right now." And then say, "I'm a career politician," only a trinitarian would stick to his first answer as what he does for a living is "I'm in between jobs right now."

This is Language Usage. This is how people communicate. Jesus' God was telling Moses his definining characteristic. In Hebrew, the word best translates to Eternal. (Bad translations simplify it to "I am" and you know it means more than "I am" but your IDOLATRY requires you to play these word games).

Another example. I'm at a party and see a hot chick. I approach and ask if she is married. She might respond with a diversion, such as "I'm gay" before saying yes or no. Again, only a trinitarian would hold her "I'm gay" as an answer to the question of her maritial status.

 

[grace2]

"I am" is not a name and everyone but trinitarians know this. The verse in question does not make the claim that is Jesus' God's name. It is the next verse, where he actually uses the word "name" that contains his name, YHWH.

If someone asks me what I do for a living and I say, "I'm in between jobs right now." And then say, "I'm a career politician," only a trinitarian would stick to his first answer as what he does for a living is "I'm in between jobs right now."

This is Language Usage. This is how people communicate. Jesus' God was telling Moses his definining characteristic. In Hebrew, the word best translates to Eternal. (Bad translations simplify it to "I am" and you know it means more than "I am" but your IDOLATRY requires you to play these word games).

Another example. I'm at a party and see a hot chick. I approach and ask if she is married. She might respond with a diversion, such as "I'm gay" before saying yes or no. Again, only a trinitarian would hold her "I'm gay" as an answer to the question of her maritial status.

They dont have ears to hear the simple Truth.