Oneness is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians.

No, trins follow the council of Nicea's pattern of recognizing 3 distinct persons, squeezing them into one divine being. It is not your idea, but someone else's.
You modern trins simply follow them like lemmings.

This is the peril of abandoning the scripture for commentary.

The real question is why are you jumping back and forth between reasonable statements and mischaracterizations of the Trinity? Four quarters is one dollar, but no one in their right mind would conclude from such 4 = 1. Likewise, 3 distinct persons recognized as one divine being doesn't imply 3 = 1. If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

By the way,
Isn't it a good thing that isn't my idea? Shouldn't our theology come from Scripture, not ourselves?
Lemmings? The question is who is correct, not how people are following.
What makes you think I'm abandoning Scripture for commentary? That's where this discussion should be, not with you endlessly condemning me without a reference to Scripture at all for months.


God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
The real question is why are you jumping back and forth between reasonable statements and mischaracterizations of the Trinity? Four quarters is one dollar, but no one in their right mind would conclude from such 4 = 1. Likewise, 3 distinct persons recognized as one divine being doesn't imply 3 = 1. If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

By the way,
Isn't it a good thing that isn't my idea? Shouldn't our theology come from Scripture, not ourselves?
Lemmings? The question is who is correct, not how people are following.
What makes you think I'm abandoning Scripture for commentary? That's where this discussion should be, not with you endlessly condemning me without a reference to Scripture at all for months.


God Bless
All of the jargon that Trinitarian’s come up with are not scripture based. Such things as three persons in a Godhead. Such things as coequal, coeternal. Such things as God is a person. Such things as three equals one. Etc. Trinitarian’s will believe anything the pope tells them per their mutual trin doctrine .
 
All of the jargon that Trinitarian’s come up with are not scripture based. Such things as three persons in a Godhead. Such things as coequal, coeternal. Such things as God is a person. Such things as three equals one. Etc. Trinitarian’s will believe anything the pope tells them per their mutual trin doctrine.

This is your opinion. Are you going to substantiate anything, or just assert what you refuse to justify? If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

The mother of harlots is the mother of Trinitarian doctrine

That's a meaningful argument? Not.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
This is your opinion. Are you going to substantiate anything, or just assert what you refuse to justify? If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.



That's a meaningful argument? Not.


God Bless
You, my Baptist friend, are a daughter of the RCC.

Repent.
 
You, my Baptist friend, are a daughter of the RCC.

Repent.

Ad Hominem. Why do you think, why would anyone think, that blatant applications of logical fallacies are meaningful? That you would use such as your primary response is all the evidence I need to reject your perspective. You position is so empty this is all you can say? I'm glad I don't have such an empty position.

If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Ad Hominem. Why do you think, why would anyone think, that blatant applications of logical fallacies are meaningful? That you would use such as your primary response is all the evidence I need to reject your perspective. You position is so empty this is all you can say? I'm glad I don't have such an empty position.

If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

God Bless
They(plural) are 1(singular)?

Shall I believe the RCC(Baptist)?

Shall I shun logic for dogma and creeds of men?

I trow not, but you can.
 
They(plural) are 1(singular)?

Shall I believe the RCC(Baptist)?

Shall I shun logic for dogma and creeds of men?

I trow not, but you can.

If you bothered to listen to what I've said so far, you would know the answers to all these questions.
Yes, they are 1.
No, reject both your heresy and those of the RCC.
No, you shouldn't abuse logic to pretend the Trinity isn't logical. Let Scripture be your guide to truth as opposed to your dogmatic assumptions. If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.


God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
If you bothered to listen to what I've said so far, you would know the answers to all these questions.
Yes, they are 1.
No, reject both your heresy and those of the RCC.
No, you shouldn't abuse logic to pretend the Trinity isn't logical. Let Scripture be your guide to truth as opposed to your dogmatic assumptions. If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.


God Bless
They(plural) are 1(singular)?

C'mon, Baptist, stop pulling my leg.
 
They(plural) are 1(singular)?

C'mon, Baptist, stop pulling my leg.

How am I pulling your leg? Jesus said "we are one" in John 10:30, how can changing from 1st to 3rd person be that big of a leap? If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
How am I pulling your leg? Jesus said "we are one" in John 10:30, how can changing from 1st to 3rd person be that big of a leap? If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

God Bless
We are one involves the Father INSIDE the son, which you cannot believe.

God in God?

No, God in man.(God and man UNIFIED as one).

If you still cannot comprehend the S(s)piritual unification process, think of the SCRIPTURAL carnal unification process teaching of a man and wife becoming "one flesh"(via one inside the other).

And all this time you thought Jesus was teaching 2=1.

By the way, trins are wrong and oneness is also scripturally wrong about the 2=1 idea.
 
We are one involves the Father INSIDE the son, which you cannot believe.

Since you have an explanation for such, then maybe you shouldn't react negatively against biblical language.

God in God?
No, God in man.(God and man UNIFIED as one).

No problem here either way.

If you still cannot comprehend the S(s)piritual unification process, think of the SCRIPTURAL carnal unification process teaching of a man and wife becoming "one flesh"(via one inside the other).

I never said I didn't comprehend your unification process. I simply reject it as unbiblical given the fact that the person who was that man shared glory with another, God the Father, before the world was.

And all this time you thought Jesus was teaching 2=1.

Your excuse doesn't justify denying that Jesus taught the Father, Son and Spirit are one in being YHWH (cf Matt 28:19).

By the way, trins are wrong and oneness is also scripturally wrong about the 2=1 idea.

If I were you, I would drop the purposeful mischaracterizations. Trinitarians simply follow the biblical pattern of recognizing three distinct persons who are the one true God. Any argument that doesn't start with the text itself as its foundation is inherently missing the mark.

God Bless
 
Top