Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The verse(s) in the Bible that oneness and trins cannot confront literally.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The verse(s) in the Bible that oneness and trins cannot confront literally.

    I have sought my Christian friends in both camps to give me a simple explanation of the following verses.

    They all disappoint me with their answers.

    Jesus, from his first mention of having a God in the O.T.(Psalm 22 etc.), to Rev 3:12, is attacked by Christians(inadvertently), and misrepresented continuously.

    Why do we do this to him?

    Why don't we let Jesus have his God?

    Can't Jesus have his God and still be God to us?

    You bet he can....it is called the Col 2:9 effect of the last Adam(Jesus Christ), after he resurrected.

    Fact is, Jesus Christ was made a quickening spirit after he was resurrected by his God, then fully indwelled of every bit of what his God consists of.

    This caused Jesus Christ to become omnipresent and the very temple of his God.

    Now his God does everything from within His quickening spirit son.

    His God is not a fraction of an inch outside him, but all of his God is inside him.

    Your comments or questions are welcome here.

  • DoctrinesofGraceBapt
    replied
    Originally posted by Truther View Post
    So the 2nd person, which is or is not God, remained a man?
    Which is it?
    Why are you confusing yourself? The 2nd person, who is God and remains God, became man and remains man. So today, Jesus is still both God and Man, not some mixture of the two.
    The highlighted is very confusing to Jesus Christ per this....
    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
    No, you are just confusing yourself again. The statement "God is a Spirit" describes the ontological nature of God. It has nothing to do with 2nd person taking on a second nature as to become man.
    Jesus says 'God is a Spirit".
    Truther says a cup is a cup.
    Baptist says a cup is an ingredient of nature, etc.
    Baptist twists Jesus' description of God, among other things.
    Truther doesn't understand how logic works and can't seem to read what Christians actually write.

    If they are not entities then they are not distinct, but only 1 person.
    An empty claim justified by nothing. If all you are going to do is assert your theology, why should I, or anyone, care? How are your opinions justified?
    BTW, entities are equivalent to beings, not persons.
    A person is not a being?
    We are not beings, but persons?
    Facepalm. How can you be this ignorant?

    Jesus' definition of God as a Spirit is irrelevant to incarnationists?
    I see.
    No, it's just irrelevant to this conversation because there is no logical connection between the statement "God is a Spirit" and the inner workings of the persons of God.
    Jesus said "God is a Spirit".
    Trins inadvetertly say "God's are 3 person Spirits".
    Believe Jesus, not the Pope, etc.
    Nope. Truther just likes to put words in our mouths.

    I bet trins call their local power companies the "authority companies", huh?
    No, you are just immature.
    I will prove that all power flows through Jesus now.....
    22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
    Per this....
    23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
    The source of the Lamb's(Jesus") light is from God.
    And all this time you thought they both had equal light power.
    I hope trins don't think the last verse says this though.....
    23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is THE AUTHORITY thereof.
    Yikes!
    Why does this matter? Oh yeah, it doesn't. You ran away from the discussion because your argument has been refuted and you needed to save face.

    God Bless

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    An admission of a power grab from Jesus by trins and their modern commentaries.
    What a bummer.
    An empty response.
    If all power flows through Jesus, you remove this and just make him God's boss?
    I'm sorry, this response simply expresses the shortcomings of your theological system.
    I bet trins call their local power companies the "authority companies", huh?
    No, you are just immature.

    I will prove that all power flows through Jesus now.....



    22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


    Per this....


    23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


    The source of the Lamb's(Jesus") light is from God.

    And all this time you thought they both had equal light power.

    I hope trins don't think the last verse says this though.....



    23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is THE AUTHORITY thereof.



    Yikes!

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    Jesus' definition of God as a Spirit is irrelevant to incarnationists?
    I see.
    No, it's just irrelevant to this conversation became there is no logical connection between the statement"God is a Spirit" and the inner workings of the persons of God.
    Jesus said "God is a Spirit".

    Trins inadvetertly say "God's are 3 person Spirits".

    Believe Jesus, not the Pope, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    Are there 3, 1/3 God entities(persons) or 3, whole God entities(persons)?
    Neither.
    If they are not entities then they are not distinct, but only 1 person.
    An empty claim justified by nothing. If all you are going to do is assert your theology, why should I, or anyone, care? How are your opinions justified?
    BTW, entities are equivalent to beings, not persons.


    A person is not a being?

    We are not beings, but persons?

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    So the 2nd person, which is or is not God, remained a man?
    Which is it?
    Why are you confusing yourself? The 2nd person, who is God and remains God, became man and remains man. So today, Jesus is still both God and Man, not some mixture of the two.
    The highlighted is very confusing to Jesus Christ per this....
    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
    No, you are just confusing yourself again. The statement "God is a Spirit" describes the ontological nature of God. It has nothing to do with 2nd person taking on a second nature as to become man.
    Jesus says 'God is a Spirit".

    Truther says a cup is a cup.

    Baptist says a cup is an ingredient of nature, etc.

    Baptist twists Jesus' description of God, among other things.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoctrinesofGraceBapt
    replied
    Originally posted by Truther View Post
    So the 2nd person, which is or is not God, remained a man?
    Which is it?
    Why are you confusing yourself? The 2nd person, who is God and remains God, became man and remains man. So today, Jesus is still both God and Man, not some mixture of the two.
    The highlighted is very confusing to Jesus Christ per this....
    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
    No, you are just confusing yourself again. The statement "God is a Spirit" describes the ontological nature of God. It has nothing to do with 2nd person taking on a second nature as to become man.

    You just defined a division in God.
    God is divided into 3, which is 3 non God entities creating God.
    No, you just claimed I defined a division, when I did not. Maybe if you stop mixing up and adding to my words, you might actually learn something.
    Are there 3, 1/3 God entities(persons) or 3, whole God entities(persons)?
    Neither.

    If they are not entities then they are not distinct, but only 1 person.
    An empty claim justified by nothing. If all you are going to do is assert your theology, why should I, or anyone, care? How are your opinions justified?

    BTW, entities are equivalent to beings, not persons.


    So much for the 2nd person defining God as a Spirit in John 4:24, huh?
    This statement expresses so much confusion. Jesus defining God as Spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with the personal/ontological make up the Trinity. Try to not confuse yourself with the irrelevant stuff.
    Jesus' definition of God as a Spirit is irrelevant to incarnationists?
    I see.
    No, it's just irrelevant to this conversation became there is no logical connection between the statement"God is a Spirit" and the inner workings of the persons of God.

    So, contextually, the verse is not saying Jesus is the firstborn of every creature?
    What else is it saying contextually?
    No, it's saying Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. You just refuse to accept the actual definition of firstborn used in this passage.
    You just said the actual definition.
    Your speech betrayeth you(highlighted).
    A nonsensical response.

    I guess Baptists call their firstborn children "the firstborn of every creature" too, since it was a slang phrase in Col 1?
    No, you are just really, really bad at reading or that disingenuous. Look at you run away from the massive point I made. David was the firstborn son of Jessy when David had many older brothers by Jessy, and the kingdom of Israel was the God's firstborn nation even though God raised up many nations before Israel. These verses make it painfully clear that firstborn is not a description of who came out of the birth cannel first but a title given to one who has a position of permanence. When will you interact with the Biblical definition?
    Okay, the nation of Israel, etc., were the firstborn of every creature too.
    Whatever you want it to mean.
    It's all good.
    You are really, really bad at reading or massively disingenuous.

    Why do trins strip Matt 28(Jesus) of having all power and only give him all authority(per modern versions and doctrine)?
    Because, the Greek word translated power in the KJV is ἐξουσία. It means:
    1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
    2. physical and mental power
    3. the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
    4. the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
    Notice, the term is more closely connected to having authorization as opposed to being personally strong. Maybe, you shouldn't jump to conclusions that are not warranted by the text?
    Because?
    It is dishonest, aka a sin you will payoff in eternity.

    An admission of a power grab from Jesus by trins and their modern commentaries.
    What a bummer.
    An empty response.

    If all power flows through Jesus, you remove this and just make him God's boss?
    I'm sorry, this response simply expresses the shortcomings of your theological system.
    I bet trins call their local power companies the "authority companies", huh?
    No, you are just immature.

    God Bless

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    If all power flows through Jesus, you remove this and just make him God's boss?
    I'm sorry, this response simply expresses the shortcomings of your theological system.
    I bet trins call their local power companies the "authority companies", huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    Why do trins strip Matt 28(Jesus) of having all power and only give him all authority(per modern versions and doctrine)?
    Because, the Greek word translated power in the KJV is ἐξουσία. It means:
    1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
    2. physical and mental power
    3. the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
    4. the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
    Notice, the term is more closely connected to having authorization as opposed to being personally strong. Maybe, you shouldn't jump to conclusions that are not warranted by the text?

    Because?

    An admission of a power grab from Jesus by trins and their modern commentaries.

    What a bummer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    I guess Baptists call their firstborn children "the firstborn of every creature" too, since it was a slang phrase in Col 1?
    No, you are just really, really bad at reading or that disingenuous. Look at you run away from the massive point I made. David was the firstborn son of Jessy when David had many older brothers by Jessy, and the kingdom of Israel was the God's firstborn nation even though God raised up many nations before Israel. These verses make it painfully clear that firstborn is not a description of who came out of the birth cannel first but a title given to one who has a position of permanence. When will you interact with the Biblical definition?
    Okay, the nation of Israel, etc., were the firstborn of every creature too.

    Whatever you want it to mean.

    It's all good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    So, contextually, the verse is not saying Jesus is the firstborn of every creature?
    What else is it saying contextually?
    No, it's saying Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. You just refuse to accept the actual definition of firstborn used in this passage.
    You just said the actual definition.

    Your speech betrayeth you(highlighted).

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    So much for the 2nd person defining God as a Spirit in John 4:24, huh?
    This statement expresses so much confusion. Jesus defining God as Spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with the personal/ontological make up the Trinity. Try to not confuse yourself with the irrelevant stuff.
    Jesus' definition of God as a Spirit is irrelevant to incarnationists?

    I see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    You just defined a division in God.
    God is divided into 3, which is 3 non God entities creating God.
    No, you just claimed I defined a division, when I did not. Maybe if you stop mixing up and adding to my words, you might actually learn something.
    Are there 3, 1/3 God entities(persons) or 3, whole God entities(persons)?

    If they are not entities then they are not distinct, but only 1 person.

    Please fix it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truther
    replied
    So the 2nd person, which is or is not God, remained a man?
    Which is it?
    Why are you confusing yourself? The 2nd person, who is God and remains God, became man and remains man. So today, Jesus is still both God and Man, not some mixture of the two.
    The highlighted is very confusing to Jesus Christ per this.....


    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoctrinesofGraceBapt
    replied
    Originally posted by Truther View Post
    You said the 2nd person(which is God) remained a man.
    And, I didn't say God remained a man. When you modify my words you change the meaning as to confuse yourself. Stop it. Besides, all of this is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you modified
    Scripture as to pretend I changed it. That was my main beef with this last response.
    So the 2nd person, which is or is not God, remained a man?
    Which is it?
    Why are you confusing yourself? The 2nd person, who is God and remains God, became man and remains man. So today, Jesus is still both God and Man, not some mixture of the two.

    So, are you now saying the 2nd person Himself is not God?
    Nope, you should really stop confusing yourself. I do not use God as a title for the Son. God, when it is used as a title for a person, is always used with respect to the Father. Therefore, it is rank heresy for a Trinitarian to mindlessly say "God remained a man". However, the 2nd person remains both God and man.
    So, the 2nd person as a lone entity is not God?
    No "lone entity". Stop sneaking in your heresies as to confuse yourself.

    You just defined a division in God.
    God is divided into 3, which is 3 non God entities creating God.
    No, you just claimed I defined a division, when I did not. Maybe if you stop mixing up and adding to my words, you might actually learn something.

    So much for the 2nd person defining God as a Spirit in John 4:24, huh?
    This statement expresses so much confusion. Jesus defining God as Spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with the personal/ontological make up the Trinity. Try to not confuse yourself with the irrelevant stuff.

    This?......
    4 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Or this?.....
    4 And THE HUMAN NATURE OF THE 2ND PERSON being full of the 3RD PERSON returned from Jordan, and was led by the 3RD PERSON into the wilderness,
    Another response from one who sees their error but can't admit it.
    I have a sinking feeling you agree with the theology of the latter......
    I have a sinking feeling you are purposefully confusing theology and exegesis as to condemn others.
    You are condemned?
    Repent.
    Really? Delusional much?

    And, you would be wrong for jumping to that conclusion if firstborn is being used as they use it in the Bible.
    What's really funny is if your interpretation is right that firstborn of every creature means "born before all creatures", then your theology is wrong for claiming Jesus came into existence in the womb of Mary.
    So, contextually, the verse is not saying Jesus is the firstborn of every creature?
    What else is it saying contextually?
    No, it's saying Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. You just refuse to accept the actual definition of firstborn used in this passage.

    They were the firstborn of every creature too?
    No, David was the firstborn son of Jessy when David had many older brothers by Jessy, and the kingdom of Israel was the God's firstborn nation even though God raised up many nations before Israel. These verses make it painfully clear that firstborn is not a description of who came out of the birth cannel first but a title given to one who has a position of permanence.
    I guess Baptists call their firstborn children "the firstborn of every creature" too, since it was a slang phrase in Col 1?
    No, you are just really, really bad at reading or that disingenuous. Look at you run away from the massive point I made. David was the firstborn son of Jessy when David had many older brothers by Jessy, and the kingdom of Israel was the God's firstborn nation even though God raised up many nations before Israel. These verses make it painfully clear that firstborn is not a description of who came out of the birth cannel first but a title given to one who has a position of permanence. When will you interact with the Biblical definition?

    Did Jesus have all power always, even centuries before he said "all power is given to me..."?
    This question is disingenuous given that you haven't defined the scope of this power or what Jesus is getting at in this statement.
    If so, why did he say that?

    Was he concerned the disciples thought he was powerless(insecure)?
    Can you give someone some particular thing they always had.
    See above.
    All power is the scope.
    I see. You can care less about actually understanding the text. You just want to prove yourself right. Good luck with that.

    Are you speaking of the power the man part of the 2nd person had as God?
    Nope. The text is talking about the authority Jesus had to act in light of his death and resurrection given the economy of God.
    Why do trins strip Matt 28(Jesus) of having all power and only give him all authority(per modern versions and doctrine)?
    Because, the Greek word translated power in the KJV is ἐξουσία. It means:
    1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
    2. physical and mental power
    3. the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
    4. the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
    Notice, the term is more closely connected to having authorization as opposed to being personally strong. Maybe, you shouldn't jump to conclusions that are not warranted by the text?

    If all power flows through Jesus, you remove this and just make him God's boss?
    I'm sorry, this response simply expresses the shortcomings of your theological system.

    God Bless

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X