The Trinity Doctrine is an unnecessary stumbling block

This topic contains 752 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  NickHassan 1 day, 16 hours ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #818748
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    Jael , your mind is racing. Slow down and find that most pressing question that you want to ask me and then I will address it here. Until then, I will pick a question of yours and address it in the one on one discussion thread that I made to keep my answers collected in a more comprehensive manner, if and when I have time.

    Thanks!

    #818753
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    No,Lu: this thread is where I desire to see the responders show their ideologies and theologies concerning the issue raised in the thread question and theology.

    Your thread is where you discuss your questions

    concerning your thread questions and ideology.

    #818755
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    Jael,

    Please read my last response to you more slowly and respond to what I asked of you in the first part.

    Thank you.

    #818761
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    LU, ‘The Father begat Jesus who always existed’!!!

    I know. Ridiculous for a number of reasons.

    1. It is an oxymoron;
    2. It is a denial of the very definition of ‘begat’;
    3. It is a denial of sonship and fatherhood;
    4. No such concept or language exists in scripture. It is more the realm of Greek philosophy;
    5. It is like saying: “the cold hot” or “the slow speedster”.
    6. Just plain dumb.

    Meddling with perfection does not lead to better than perfection, but less.

    #818777
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    You are still clueless of the term ‘begat.’ If the act of begetting takes something that exists and moves it to another place, then obviously the actual begetting does not make something come into existence.

    Also, an eternal Father would require the existence of an eternal Son. Without an eternal Son, there would not be an eternal Father.

    The oxymoron is what you seem to believe in…a fatherless, eternal father.  That is what is plain dumb, my friend.

    #818779
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    So born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence?

    The son comes from the Father because he was begotten.

    But your view is that Jesus is an extension of God. Another limb or something.

    Perhaps a substance that contains two persons like the Trinity with one less member.

    But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man.

    Would you argue that the woman is eternally begotten from the man?

    #818784
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    You asked (numbers added by me to correspond to my answers):

    1.So born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence?

    2.The son comes from the Father because he was begotten.

    3.But your view is that Jesus is an extension of God. Another limb or something.

    4.Perhaps a substance that contains two persons like the Trinity with one less member.

    5.But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man.

    6.Would you argue that the woman is eternally begotten from the man?

    My answers:

    1.Correct, born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence.

    2.The Son comes out from the Father because he was begotten.

    3.Jesus is an extension of God as an offspring.

    4.Perhaps a substance that contains two persons “like” a parent cell with it’s identical offspring cell within it.

    5.But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man. Yes. So? The Father has always been the head of the Son, yet the two are equal in essence, one in Spirit and all things possible.

    6.The woman is not eternal, the first woman was begotten from the man as the LORD took the rib from the man and formed the woman.

    #818788
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    1)

    born
    bɔːn/Submit
    adjective
    existing as a result of birth.
    “she was born in Aberdeen”
    having a specific nationality.
    suffix: -born
    “a German-born philosopher”
    having a natural ability to do a particular job.
    “he’s a born engineer”

    Yes we existed before being born. We were conceived.

    conceive
    kənˈsiːv/Submit
    verb
    past tense: conceived; past participle: conceived
    1.
    create (an embryo) by fertilizing an egg.
    “she was conceived when her father was 49”
    2.
    form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
    “the dam project was originally conceived in 1977”
    synonyms: think up, think of, come up with, dream up, draw up, devise, form, formulate, design, frame, invent, coin, originate, create, develop, evolve; More

    But to say that born rules out any interpretation of coming into existence is wrong IMO.

    #818789
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    2)

    Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.

    If Jesus came from God, then how can he be God that he came came. Sure he will be like him and perhaps even have his nature. The revelation of Jesus Christ’s origins in scripture is that he is of God. He is referred to as the visible image of God, the son of God, the exact representation of God, Word of God, wisdom of God, glory of God, the messiah, and the one whom God made both Lord and Christ.

    The real reason that there is a Trinity Doctrine and other derivatives such as yours is to dismiss the scriptural descriptions of who Jesus is. If you say he is God, then the other stuff is irrelevant. Of course that doesn’t stop pride from forcing a way to encompass Jesus as God being these other things too. This is imperative if the Jesus is God camp is to look like they have credibility. However, let’s just be honest here. If you believe that Jesus is God, then you cannot really believe those other things about God. You can only pay them lip service in order to retain a look of credibility.

    The whole point in scripture about revealing Jesus identity is to believe who he is. He is the son of God, the messiah, and the Lord. Our testimony is the same as Peter’s declaration to Jesus upon whom Jesus built his Church. Both John and Paul teach who Jesus is. And of course, Jesus has the last word on who he is and he never said he as God, but agreed that he is the son and the messiah. But there is an even greater witness as to who Jesus is besides Jesus own witness. That is his Father who is God who said: “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”.

    He is the son of God. Get over it LU. Opposing this with wayward doctrines is not going to give you a good reward. Those who teach men to break commandments are at best, the least in the kingdom.

    #818790
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    3)

    Jesus is not God’s leg. He is the son.

    The son is a sentient being. He is not God or a non sentient extension of God. He was born of God and is a unique person.

    Likewise we can be born of God and not be God. We are sentient beings too and not God and never will be.

    We are sons of God. Jesus in truth is a son too, but the prototype son.

    Your doctrine is indeed a strange one. But you seem to be the only one to hold it. Or perhaps it is a main teaching from one of the denominations/cults? If so, then perhaps not too strange. But not true.

    #818791
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    4)

    God is a person or identity. He has a nature and is spirit.

    Most of these wayward doctrines that define God as being a substance put his nature first and identity second.

    This is wrong. He is primarily a life, not a thing or substance.

    I do not define the members of my family as flesh that contains multiple persons.

    They are people/lives first. Their nature is not who they.

    God in scripture is a HE because he is one LORD.

    Not THEY because he is a substance or blob containing multiple persons.

    Yes all these false doctrines put substance first. Perhaps an indication that the authors do not know God.

    If I referred to my wife as a flesh thing all the time, then people would be correct in assuming that I do not truly know her as a person and individual living being.

    We are not our bodies or our nature. We have them, but are not them.

    I never think of my kids as a flesh blob containing two kids. lol.

    #818792
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    5) You say

    5.But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man. Yes. So? The Father has always been the head of the Son, yet the two are equal in essence, one in Spirit and all things possible.

    Was Adam always the head of Eve? Was Eve the same age as Adam? Then how can you derive your meaning when relating to God and Christ in this context. You have merely just appended your view to this scripture with absolutely no justification.

    #818793
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 866
    • Total replies 17,440

    6) You say:

    The woman is not eternal, the first woman was begotten from the man as the LORD took the rib from the man and formed the woman.

    Yet when it comes to the son of God, you say that the son is eternal and this is part of the meaning of begotten, even though in your above words, you admit that the woman was begotten and was not eternal.

    That is a discrepancy. Remember you are the one who said: “Correct, born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence”.

    Yet you say that the woman came into existence when she was begotten.

    I guess you could fix this by adding a patch. Perhaps say that the woman is an extension of Adam and Adam and extension of God who is eternal making her eternal.

    But probably better just to accept the truth because there is no discrepancy there too.

    Problem solved.

    #818794
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    A ‘Son of God’ is one who does the work that the Father appoints him.

    ‘Son’ in scriptures relating to God does not mean ‘Offspring’. Such offspring refers to the created beings of humanity: Pro-Creation.

    God creates – God does not Pro-Create.

    Before creation of the Angels and the world God was just God. God then created which makes him ‘Father’ of all creation.

    When God created human, different to all other objects of his creation, God made man in his own image so that man would reflect his glory. This first man was called ‘Adam’, which means ‘Man’ in Hebrew.

    Adam was indeed a reflection of God in that he had power and authority over all of the rest of creation (excluding the Angels, of course).

    So Adam was, at that point, ‘True Son of God’. This point seems lost on almost all debaters, discussioners, and Christian scriptural professors: they REFUSE to acknowledge a fundamental and comprehensive truth.

    Since this first son of God (Luke 3:38) went on to sin, God required the blood of another to offset that sin… It’s all in the scriptures – and anyone who doesn’t know this SHOULD NOT BE DEBATING on issues of ‘Sonship’ in the Christian scriptures.

    Because none of Adams ‘offspring’ (uh-oh!!! Replace with ‘PROCREATIONS’) could fulfil the role, God ‘CREATED’ a new (another) ‘Son’ in the SAME MANNER as the first man: a SECOND ADAM (Also quite rightly classed as the LAST ADAM, for obvious reasons!!) Don’t be dismissive of this truth: The first Adam was created sinless and holy – the spirit of the lifeless body was supplied by the Holy Spirit.

    The second/Last Adam was created likewise.

    This second/Last Adam was named ‘Jesus’ as a way to reflect his objectives (‘Jesus’ is an English modification of the Hebrew name ‘Joshua’ – Yeshua –  which means ‘God saves’ …(trini’s, does this mean Joshua was God?) just as ‘the first Joshua’ brought the children of Israel into the promised land. Jesus is to lead humanity into the promised kingdom of his Father and Almighty God)

    As for ‘Eve’… Eve is originally an extension of Adam in that Eve was taken out of Adam. The traits and aspects of a woman are were originally in Adam. Think about it: many, even professors and scholars in Christian studies, cannot read that Adam was created and Eve taken out of him…they continue to say, ‘God created them equal…at the same time!’!!!.

    Think about this: before Eve, how would Adam procreate? Hmmm….!

    All the ways of woman were in Adam – God took them out in majority and made them into another ‘man’ – a ‘Wombed Man: Wo’Man) who would REQUIRE a companion to join to in order to be a full as-created human being: The biological reproduction elements put into the female so a male in union is required (hence homosexuality is a sin!). Vanity… Yes, God is vain but controlled vanity. Nurture… Compassion … Love… Subordination… These are some aspects that are highly prominent in a woman over anything like the equivalent in a man (male).

    I know LU won’t like that last part – but truth doesn’t have preference over who should believe it.

    #818796
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    t8

    You did well to get to this point: you said, “Yes we existed before being born.”

    This is also what I said about the matter:

    If the act of begetting takes something that exists and moves it to another place, then obviously the actual begetting does not make something come into existence.

    You said: “But to say that born rules out any interpretation of coming into existence is wrong IMO.”

    I did not say anything exactly like that. I would say that anything born alive was already alive before it was born regarding living organisms.

    Can you give me an example of any living organism that is/was born that did not exist in a living way before it was born?

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 753 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2017 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account