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

Extremely CREEPY Youtube explanation of God by Trinitarians - do you agree?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bluemayskye View Post

    I was specifically referring to what some believe to be the inerrant doctrine of the early church fathers recorded in the cannon of Scripture.

    Should this then be an example of how the church deals with those that lie about the scope of their offering?
    It was not the church who dealt with them - it was God who took their life for attempting to lie to God.
    Some of this material has been posted by me on other websites.
    By law, I cannot plagiarize my own work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
    If you accuse me of plagiarism, you will face it again at the judgment

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by nothead View Post

      This claim would have to be very clear for the Jew, who only ascribes one Character or Referent to God.

      As in, "I am YHWH." And all of this stuff about being the "Great I Am" is also intermediate hogwash.

      Jesus did not MINCE words. If you do not know THIS about him then what do you know sir?
      Jesus didn't mince words - JOHN 8:24 " I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins"

      I AM - EGO EMI

      JOHN 8:58 "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am"



      Some have said this means Jesus said, "I existed in the counsel of God. Objections to this:

      1. The present tense is used by Jesus "I AM". Not the past tense "I was". This is analogous to Jahveh saying to Moses in Exodus 3 "I AM". Of course it is grammatically correct to imply a "he" after normal statements of Ego Eimi, but not here... Grammatically "he" doesn't work in this verse of John 8:58. This is why all 25 ENGLISH translations here" http://biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm just say "I AM".

      2. If he just means he existed in the counsel of God, then Abraham must have also equally pre-existed in the counsel of God.

      3. If he just means he existed in the counsel of God, then his statement doesn't add light to his previous statements and is simply empty. The Jews would have yawned and went to lunch and not tried to kill him.

      Jesus' claims of deity just drive some people nuts with anger.

      Glory to Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, the first and the last!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Neal View Post

        Jesus didn't mince words - JOHN 8:24 " I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins"

        I AM - EGO EMI

        JOHN 8:58 "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am"



        Some have said this means Jesus said, "I existed in the counsel of God. Objections to this:

        1. The present tense is used by Jesus "I AM". Not the past tense "I was". This is analogous to Jahveh saying to Moses in Exodus 3 "I AM". Of course it is grammatically correct to imply a "he" after normal statements of Ego Eimi, but not here... Grammatically "he" doesn't work in this verse of John 8:58. This is why all 25 ENGLISH translations here" http://biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm just say "I AM".

        2. If he just means he existed in the counsel of God, then Abraham must have also equally pre-existed in the counsel of God.

        3. If he just means he existed in the counsel of God, then his statement doesn't add light to his previous statements and is simply empty. The Jews would have yawned and went to lunch and not tried to kill him.

        Jesus' claims of deity just drive some people nuts with anger.

        Glory to Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, the first and the last!
        The implied predicate in my opinion is true for both. John says "I am" red letter six or seven times (sorry, Alzheimer plaques) and EACH TIME the implied "he" is meant.

        "I am [he]" is meant. HE is MESSIAH sir, not GOD. 'Cmon now, we both been here since forever sir. Do you not know my theological POSITION concerning sir? I only POSTED it 58.2546 times sir. I remember THAT sir.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Neal View Post
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUrKTMKh78c


          Three drops of water, the one drop is sent like a meteorite into Mary's belly. Very polytheistic explanations. Very creepy religion. Do any Trinitarians here agree with it or disagree? This is not the God of the Bible.
          The 4th century Greek Cappadonian father says ,"God is an infinite sea of substance".Three drops of water is an attempt to elucidate the scriptural relative predication.People put to most stock in this number three.Numbering said of God is only in the human mode of intelligibility.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by nothead View Post

            The Trinity IS the Holy Spirit? This statement makes no sense.

            The ESSENCE of the Trinity IS the Holy Spirit? This makes a little more sense, only if we think of the ESSENCE of God to be underlying the Holy Spirit.

            Although a few believe God IS Spirit. Yes, in a LIMITED sense. God is actually MORE than Spirit. The Father of Spirits SENDS Spirits. Different variations of the same one. The HOLY Spirit.
            On the contrary the Holy Spirit is not three interrelated persons. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity.God is spirit by nature and is manifestly expressed and adored in the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty. One of the father another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.So the Greeks say,"tres hypostases un Ousia".

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Neal View Post

              Your condescending words towards me are noted.

              1. By Truther's own admission here on CARM, he doesn't believe the Oneness doctrine.

              2. Tertullian's Quote: " ...the simple , indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers
              , are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's
              plurality of gods to the one only true God....
              They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and
              three gods , while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God"

              THEY in this context refers to the "simple", "not...unwise", "majority". THEY are CONSTANTLY... against us... that we are preachers of two gods and three gods"

              Of course he is talking about the majority "startled", "constantly throwing out against two gods.. three gods" of Tertullian's teaching of "three in one", etc.


              3. Browser image search on "Trinitarian Triangle" goes here to these creepy images: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...29&FORM=IQFRBA

              Whatever you want to call the Trinitarian symbolism, it has parts. Do you not see three parts?

              Definition of "Part" - "
              a piece or segment of something such as an object, activity, or period of time, which combined with other pieces makes up the whole"

              The facts are plain.
              Yet Neal you prove Tertullians point. You constantly accuse the Trinity of what has never been meant to be understood because the simple indeed may not be unwise, but based on all your post ,definitely unlearned.

              The one and only true God is believed on in His own economy.Oneness and Trinitarians alike express this fact every time you say the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

              There are three distinctive divine realities each hypostatic by itself.Jesus a real man each not each distinction,but God who is not a man is each distinction.
              Last edited by Aeg4371; 02-13-18, 11:35 AM. Reason: correction

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post

                On the contrary the Holy Spirit is not three interrelated persons. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity.God is spirit by nature and is manifestly expressed and adored in the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty. One of the father another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.So the Greeks say,"tres hypostases un Ousia".
                You aren't EVEN following the argument, but TROLLED-IN sir. ON THE CONTRARY sir? Did I ever SAY the Holy Spirit is three interrelated persons sir?

                Don't contrary ME sir. I'll contrary YOU until you contrary to ALL THINGS sir.

                Comment


                • #38


                  Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post
                  On the contrary the Holy Spirit is not three interrelated persons. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity.God is spirit by nature and is manifestly expressed and adored in the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty. One of the father another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.So the Greeks say,"tres hypostases un Ousia".

                  nothead replied
                  02-13-18, 11:50 AM
                  You aren't EVEN following the argument, but TROLLED-IN sir. ON THE CONTRARY sir? Did I ever SAY the Holy Spirit is three interrelated persons sir?

                  Don't contrary ME sir. I'll contrary YOU until you contrary to ALL THINGS sir.
                  I don't troll, I teach. You said the Holy Spirit is the Trinity, that makes no sense.I responded to the notion that the Holy Spirit is the Trinity. The point I made no one should have entertained the notion the Holy Spirit is three persons related.

                  Comment


                  • #39

                    Originally posted by TheLayman View Post
                    Your inability to follow and respond to what is actually said to you is noted yet again. Perhaps at least you understand why people don't care to respond real often rather than the nonsense you said elsewhere in this thread. BTW, you are constantly insulting and condescending to others, it is amazing how quickly become a snowflake.

                    TheLayman

                    Neal replied
                    02-12-18, 12:01 PM
                    You do know that Tertullian was a subordinationist? ...Something that is considered by some Trinitarians to be heresy. Yet you use his material. I find that strange since you see yourself as "orthodox" in your views.

                    It is odd that you would defend a subordinationist while dismissing the Oneness doctrine which boldly declares that the Lord Jesus Christ is the supreme Lord God Almighty, Jahveh Himself!

                    Perhaps you were unaware of the creepy subordinationist teaching of Tertullian.

                    I know that if I lived in his day I would find his low Christological view to be unacceptable. Jesus is the one Lord God Almighty, the first and las
                    t.
                    Being that the scriptures were actually written in a subordinate manner.Please elaborate on what you mean by Tertulliam was a subordinationist..

                    Jesus is the One Lord God Almighty, just as the Father is and just as the Holy Spirit is. Jesus was also a man born of flesh and blood.Which makes Him not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Father is unbegotten and the Holy Spirit is proceeding. Jesus was begotten.

                    One and only is represented by divers things yet and still absolutely one thing.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Theo Book View Post
                      It was not the church who dealt with them - it was God who took their life for attempting to lie to God.
                      9 And Peter said unto her, `How was it agreed by you, to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? lo, the feet of those who did bury thy husband [are] at the door, and they shall carry thee forth;'
                      Peter appears quite aware of what "god" was doing here. Almost as though he had a part in it...
                      Salvation belongs to God

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post



                        I don't troll, I teach. You said the Holy Spirit is the Trinity, that makes no sense.I responded to the notion that the Holy Spirit is the Trinity. The point I made no one should have entertained the notion the Holy Spirit is three persons related.
                        I am anti-trin. Never said no such thing sir. If you don not know this BY NOW you don't know nothin' 'BOUT me sir. Geddon with you now. The FIRST thing you said in the last TWO posts are false.

                        Batten ZERO sir. Can't get no accolades NOW sir.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bluemayskye View Post

                          Does Jesus ever advocate killing people who do not conform to church doctrine? The only NT example I can think of that even comes close is Ananias and Sapphira and one would have to really stretch that to conclude god wants his followers to slaughter heretics.
                          God judging a man and woman for blasphemy is one thing. Men judging other men for disagreement over made-up doctrine, and killing them to make others fear to speak out, is murder. We are to "put such a one out of the assembly" after having attempted to teach them with humility and love.

                          And if the unbelievers outnumber you, "get yourself out from among them" and go teach others who are not bound in unbelief.

                          If God is not promoted among Man because of love, He wants nothing to do with it. And the history of Men striving for mastery over other Men, in the name of teaching the love of God, is mind-boggling.
                          Some of this material has been posted by me on other websites.
                          By law, I cannot plagiarize my own work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
                          If you accuse me of plagiarism, you will face it again at the judgment

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post


                            Being that the scriptures were actually written in a subordinate manner.Please elaborate on what you mean by Tertulliam was a subordinationist..

                            Jesus is the One Lord God Almighty, just as the Father is and just as the Holy Spirit is. Jesus was also a man born of flesh and blood.Which makes Him not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Father is unbegotten and the Holy Spirit is proceeding. Jesus was begotten.

                            One and only is represented by divers things yet and still absolutely one thing.
                            The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that for Tertullian, "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge." As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullianís views are, of course, completely unacceptable."

                            Tertullian believed there was a time when the Son didn't exist, but was created sometime before the world. So, he meant much more than an economic Trinity.

                            Jesus Christ is the First and Last, the Supreme Lord God Almighty.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Theo Book View Post

                              God judging a man and woman for blasphemy is one thing. Men judging other men for disagreement over made-up doctrine, and killing them to make others fear to speak out, is murder. We are to "put such a one out of the assembly" after having attempted to teach them with humility and love.
                              Agreed, mostly. Who gets to decide when it is appropriate for believers to "do god's will" and forcefully purge the heretics? Many OT examples (as well as AD) could be made to support slaughtering those who disagree with god.

                              And if the unbelievers outnumber you, "get yourself out from among them" and go teach others who are not bound in unbelief.
                              This is a two way street: if you find yourself among zealots who do not allow free thinking individuals (the original definition of heresy is "the ability to choose") to question church creeds.

                              If God is not promoted among Man because of love, He wants nothing to do with it. And the history of Men striving for mastery over other Men, in the name of teaching the love of God, is mind-boggling.
                              Again, I agree here but god himself sets a poor example of this.
                              Salvation belongs to God

                              Comment


                              • #45


                                Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post

                                Being that the scriptures were actually written in a subordinate manner.Please elaborate on what you mean by Tertulliam was a subordinationist..

                                Jesus is the One Lord God Almighty, just as the Father is and just as the Holy Spirit is. Jesus was also a man born of flesh and blood.Which makes Him not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Father is unbegotten and the Holy Spirit is proceeding. Jesus was begotten.

                                One and only is represented by divers things yet and still absolutely one thing.

                                Neal replied
                                02-15-18, 08:26 AM
                                The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that for Tertullian, "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge." As regards the subjects of
                                subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable."

                                Tertullian believed there was a time when the Son didn't exist, but was created sometime before the world. So, he meant much more than an economic Trinity.

                                Jesus Christ is the First and Last, the Supreme Lord God Almighty
                                .
                                Neal Tertullian meant οἰκονομία/economy like we mean God own self sovereignty..Tert may have said there was a time when the Son was not. So does Oneness and Unitarians. You are all subordinationist., just some of you with the qualifying lip service of Jesus is the Father when Jesus specifically stated He was numerically one with the Father.

                                The subsisting or individual reality- of the Father in opposite regard to the subsisting or individual reality of the Son in opposite regard to the subsisting or individual reality of the Holy Spirit does not make God as He is in Himself more or less one absolutely.

                                You constantly insist that this word person is not sharply used and as applied to God it would not and could not be in the sharp sense of reception into a subject. But as you suppose there was a time when the Son was not because He was the Father before is all types of motion and movement in God. The Apostle John and Christ Himself makes crystal clear that there was never a time when He was not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X