The Trinity Doctrine is an unnecessary stumbling block

This topic contains 749 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  t8 6 months, 1 week ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #818938
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    Yes. LU lost the plot years ago. But she is an interesting case and has much to teach us about how people went astray and developed tho Trinity Doctrine in the first place. She is teaching the wise indirectly if they observe her thinking patterns which lead to this drunkenness because the whole world has been led astray and is drunk.  Observing her shows us how this happens. Further this same drunkedness took place way back in the days of Nimrod. While I do not understand this tendency, it seems to happen quite a lot. But personally I cannot see the attraction in creating a god from your own mind or from our own image or from our own hands. Perhaps LU could answer that question.

    #818939
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    The way of the LU’ers in the truth of the Christian scriptures is in ignoring that very truth…

    Start with a fantastical idea – in lu’s case and being a female – the idea that a son could emerge from a parent sits nicely with MOTHERHOOD… which is what stymies LU from understand what the SPIRITUAL meaning of ‘Son’ is.

    She thinks of the PHYSICAL (fleshly) meaning and applies it to the Spirit, resulting in ‘God incubating Jesus and then bringing him forth as a child’ – and the desperation for scriptural support drove her to claim that Solomon extolling the virtue of Yahweh’s ‘Wisdom’ was her conclusive ‘proof’ of her false theory.

    The construction of the poem and the references in it absolutely do not point to a ‘possessing’ of a Son. Suffice it to say that ‘an eternal son’ does not match with ‘possessed me as the first of his works’.

    And as for how ‘the given’ is equal to ‘the giver’ – well, only hardened delusionists could make that work.

    The old ‘The Son is God’ thing!! Well, start by asking for a definition of what they claim is ‘GOD’. Different delusionists have different definitions so don’t assume the same one as another. That way gives ammunition to the present, trinitarian or JiG.

    Is ‘God’ a ‘Nature and Substance’, a THING, which the (three) share? Apply it to the use of the word ‘God’ in scriptures.

    Is ‘God’ a ‘Person’… Ha ha ha… A person ‘Speaks’… Ha ha ha (sorry!). ‘God’ speaks to mankind… ‘God’ speaks to ‘the Son’… ‘God’ speaks to the Angels… Oh, but… Does ‘God’ speak to ‘the Father’? ‘the Holy Spirit’? Why not?

    Lu claims a strange concept that both ‘God’ and Jesus have their own spirits (two separate spirits) but that they are BOTH THE SAME SPIRIT… Now that is a mystery.

    ‘A Mystery’… Always the last words of all false doctrine.

    #818941
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    Whether Jesus is Wisdom from God, the Word of God, the first work of God or not, LU’s view is wrong regardless of this.

    Scripture is clear that for us there is one God the Father. For her, there is one God the Father and the Son. For Trinitarians, there is one God the Father, Son, Spirit.

    While it is paramount we believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, believing that Jesus is also God, or that he is also the Father as Oneness Doctrine teaches, these fanciful doctrines are not just wrong, but they border or cross over into the definition of the AntiChrist Spirit which denies that Father and the Son.

    #818942
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 858
    • Total replies 17,399

    As for the preexistence of Jesus as the Word, Wisdom, the angel of YHWH, or even as a literal firstborn and only begotten before creation, this is an entirely different topic IMO. That topic is here:

    http://heavennet.net/forums/topic/preexistence-part-2/page/502/

    Further, if Jesus is the Word that was with God etc, this does not make him God. Saying these things does not prove LU’s position even if these points were/are correct. The early Church fathers (pre-Nicene) did not believe Jesus was God, but the Word and that Word was in God as an attribute of God, but was expressed as the first work of the Father. Tatian said this for example:

    God was in the beginning, but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Word. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary basis of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone, but inasmuch as He was all powerful, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Word-power, the Word himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Word sprang forth, and the Word, not coming forth in vain, became the firstbegotten work of the Father . Him [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14). But He came into being by participation, not by cutting off, for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him

    But yes, this is a different topic. But if you wanted to read more about what they believed, you can go here and comment/post there regarding this.

    Pre-Nicene Writings – The Trinity Doctrine

     

    #818960
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    Lu is living a romantic dream and refuses to wake up because the dream is sweetness to her femaleness.

    The end of everything is that ‘For us, there is only one God, the Father…’

    And that ‘one God’ is ‘the only true God’.

    The main problem lay in the lack of definition of the word or term ‘God’.

    You can see the confused usage clearly when trini’s, JiG, oneness, etc, speak of ‘Him’. … I visited a oneness church recently and picked up a ‘Welcom’ leaflet… In it, it said, Please do not ask us to explain Oneness’… ’nuff said, eh!

    I also observe from trini church worship that they ‘Worship (?) only the Father’ but try to make it SEEM as though they are including Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

    Obvioysly they explain it saying that by worshipping the Father (Alone?) they are worshipping GOD, and that therefore they are ALSO WORSHIPPING the son and the Holy Spirit.

    Do they ever ‘pray’ to the Holy Spirit? Not heard that yet!!

    Then this thing about ‘Subordination in God’… Interestingly, try figuring WHICH definition of ‘God’ they are referring to!

    Most ATTEMPTS, when you can FORCE them to make one, end up so convoluted that they readily admit that even they don’t understand it ….because ‘YOUR’ (!!) tiny minds cannot understand the depth of God… You note they don’t include themselves here yet they uncleverly end up saying ‘God is a mystery’…

    ‘Mystery’ is a good way to describe the doctrine that denies what is properly written in the scriptures.

    #818962
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    It is an interesting comment to make that suggests, ‘the early church fathers did not regard Jesus as being god’!!

    Just where where was any such suggestion ever conceived by the early church fathers that could bring such a suggested denial to mind?

    There is nothing to deny of that which was never claimed….!

    BUT YET when Jesus Christ himself  DENIED a claim of ‘being God’, saying, ‘I said ONLY that I am the SON OF GOD!!’, it STILL doesn’t stop even BASE-Core trinitarians and JiG’s claiming that Jesus was actually CLAIMING to be God…. Phew!!!

    You see the same pattern of reverse logic when Jesus stated, ‘Why do you call me good!, there is none good but God!!’. Trini and jig race to disqualify Jesus’ ‘Denial’ by claiming Jesus was ACTUALLY CLAIMING HE WAS GOD… i.e., that he was actually CONFIRMING the other party’s words of him being ‘Good’ and therefore MUST be God because ‘only God is Good’. In actual fact, the whole thing was blown out of proportion as the context of the conversation was of Jesus being ‘a good TEACHER’. According to the suggestion, the man was ‘testing’ Jesus’ ego … that Jesus should have said, ‘Yeah, man… Cool, I am, aren’t I, yeah!’.

    However, I’m intrigued by the oft quoted, ‘How to reply to a Jehovah’s Witness’, regarding this topic. The trinitarian is told to ask the JW whether he thinks Jesus WAS good. If the JW says ‘Yes’, then tell him that proves Jesus was God because he stated that ‘only God is Good’… If the JW answers otherwise…then Jesus must be ‘NOT GOOD’…. The JW is trapped either way… Ha ha ha ha….

    Stupid…I know, but that’s Trinitarian logic for you… Illogic!!!

    P.S., ‘Good(ness)’ is not binary….! ‘Let him who has an ear listen closely’

    #818970
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8  @jael

    Well, well…interesting to read your thoughts about what I believe while misquoting me, twisting my words, etc. Are ya’ll trying to do this on purpose for some strange satisfaction? Is that wise or does that show a lack? For instance, let me start with some of Jael’s comments:

    Jael, you said:

    She thinks of the PHYSICAL (fleshly) meaning and applies it to the Spirit, resulting in ‘God incubating Jesus and then bringing him forth as a child’ – and the desperation for scriptural support drove her to claim that Solomon extolling the virtue of Yahweh’s ‘Wisdom’ was her conclusive ‘proof’ of her false theory.

    The construction of the poem and the references in it absolutely do not point to a ‘possessing’ of a Son. Suffice it to say that ‘an eternal son’ does not match with ‘possessed me as the first of his works’.

    Jael, is this supposed to be a quote of mine? If so, where did I even say this: ‘God incubating Jesus and then bringing him forth as a child’? I believe that I can show you that I corrected you about this in the past yet you still use these words as if they were mine. Is that wise or does that show a lack of understanding of what I believe?

    Then you seem to quote scripture here by saying that scripture says these words which you put quote marks around: ‘possessed me as the first of his works.’ Just what translation writes that as you quote? Have you written your own translation or are you simply misquoting all of the translations? Is that wise or does that show a lack of quoting skills? I could go on and on with what you have claimed in the past, like your belief that the Holy Spirit is not spoken of with masculine pronouns, and such. Just a few minutes ago I corrected your claim that the Father does not reveal the Son. I ask you, is it wise to keep putting your foot in  your mouth like this? You have the right to do so…but is it wise?

    Now, for what you, t8 are writing about my beliefs…

    t8, you wrote:

    Scripture is clear that for us there is one God the Father. For her, there is one God the Father and the Son. For Trinitarians, there is one God the Father, Son, Spirit.

    Well, you can put a spin on my beliefs if you want, but at the end of the day, it is just a spin, a mishandling or what I believe and not what I actually have been explaining to you for many years now. Is that wise to continue along that path or would it be better to actually pay attention to what I write and not spin it in a way in which it is not presented. If you disagree that you have done that, then surely you can find my words that actually say that which you claim and quote me and put a link to that. I don’t believe that you can do that.

    I don’t know if it is just the nature of this forum that causes both of your confusion or if it is blindness or just what the problem is. Just a few days ago, I sat down with a couple of gentlemen that came to my door representing the JW’s. Within less than 10 minutes and showing them five verses which I led them to and which they read from their own translation, they were clearly shown that the Jehovah they were supposedly witnessing for was both the God of gods and Lord of lords and that Jesus was the Lord of lords in the highest sense. It was beautiful how they became speechless and all of the sudden, had to leave. They made an appointment to return yesterday but never came and never notified me that they were not coming. I even made brownies and had coffee ready to prepare for a continued discussion. I was sad they didn’t return because I know I can help them. I know my desire to help them isn’t a popular one since most Christians seem to want to know how to get rid of them from what I can tell.

    For the ability to quickly refute their first point they tried to make to me by using John 17:3, I, in part, credit my involvement with HN and our discussions, t8. God has used that to sharpen my defense of the unity of God to include the presence of the Father, Son and their Holy Spirit. So, thank you, t8 for making this forum and challenging me with that passage. I don’t know why you don’t see what the JW gentlemen seemed to so easily begin to see but at least it got them realizing that not only is there one God the Father but, for us, there is only one Lord who is Jesus Christ and who is Lord in the highest sense since He is Lord of all. I do realize that your intent is not to help me show you that Jesus is the Lord of lords in the highest sense,  but God can use even your unintentional effort to refine us here at HN and show you truth whether or not you grasp it. Others will. May God be glorified in all things and if I am belittled for the cause of Christ, I am grateful to be belittled, so were and are many followers of Christ. When you belittle me, you are not only belittling me but all those who declare the Nicene Creed as true.

    1 Peter 4 12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. 14If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 16but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

    You both can revile those who believe in the Unity of God to include the Father, Son and their Holy Spirit as they confess this Nicene Creed, but is that wise?

    The Nicene Creed

    I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

    Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

    And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

    And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    #818986
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    LU, read biblehub: “English Standard Version
    “The LORD possessed me [at the beginning of his work], the first of his acts of old.” (my brackets)

    Where is my ‘misquote’?

    “You both can revile those who believe in the Unity of God to include the Father, Son and their Holy Spirit as they confess this Nicene Creed, but is that wise?

    Yes, The underlying theorem of yours requires that we be wise indeed to deny your claims as they are not scriptural.

    You seem to think that we live by the Nicene Creed. No, Lu, WE (I) DO NOT.

    You see no credit given to God for raising Christ: ‘He rose again on the third day’, as if he did so of himself!! This because the creed would have to explain how Jesus is God but had to be raised by someone GREATER – the DEAD cannot raise themself!!

    Again, “GOD SEATED HIM at his right hand” but the creed makes out that Jesus “Seated Himself” at the right hand of the Father. This denies the might of the Father over the ‘guest of honor’ which is what ‘The right hand seat’ of the king is for (David seated at the right hand as ‘Son (-in-law-in-waiting of Saul in the O.T.)

    The creed also fails to show that the Kingdom that Jesus is to rule over is WITHIN the kingdom of the Father – the kingdom of Heaven… Jesus will rule over the Kingdom of EARTH – which means, “Creation”.

    HEAVEN is way greater than EARTH (Creation)… LU, if Jesus is GOD….WHY… is he to rule over something LESS THAN WHAT HE RULES OVER NOW?

    Why is Jesus to ‘Come again’… Isn’t God EVER-PRESENT?

    #819027
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    LU, Two JW’s were so shocked – speechless – that they suddenly had to leave. You baked cookies and made coffee for them – but they never returned to hear more of your pearls of delusion…

    Lu, did Jesus ever laugh?

    No! Laughing is actually a negative reaction to someone or something’s outlandish misadventure! A social acceptable snipe at a misfortune.

    Lu, I won’t laugh at yours…

     

     

     

    !….ha ha ha ha ha….!

    #819028
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    Open question to all:

    What is the difference between using ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Father’, ‘Son’ in specific verses in scriptures?

    Since trinitarians and JiG’s believe they are all the ONE PERSON why is there a distinction that CLEARLY differentiates , for instance, ‘GOD’ (which is the title of A RULING DEITY – the Jews in this case) and ‘Jesus’ (Which is the PERSONAL NAME of a MAN made Holy and Sinless BY [the (Jewish)] GOD…).

    Again, tradition blind so-called ‘Christian’ religion claims that they are THE SAME PERSON…

    But wait… Trinitarians, under questioning, CLAIM that ‘their GOD is NOT a Person (Note: ‘Their God is not a person…) God, to them is a NATURE AND SUBSTANCE of which THREE PERSONS share … You will notice the Clover leaf they often present as ‘Proof of God (their God)’, one LEAF but THREE HEADS (Don’t tell them about a four-leaf clover – they will freak out!!)..

    Oh, exactly like CERBERUS….of Greek MYTHOLOGY!!!

    Doubtless you will be reminded that the three persons of the trinity God are interdependent – without one there is no ‘God’… Indeed how could there be since a major tenet of this ‘God’ is that IT is IMMUTABLE… It CANNOT CHANGE… A Perfect God cannot become anything else – if it could then it wasn’t perfect in the first place!!’

    Yet the trinity ‘God’ claims one of its COMPONENT PERSONS ’emptied himself’ and became imperfect man!!

    This means, of course, that there were now only TWO PERFECT PERSONS in the TRINITY GOD(-Head)!!

    Teinitarians were NEVER any good with elementary arithmetic… Witness these goofs and gaffs of theirs:

    1) Our God is ONE…

    2) Our ONE God is THREE…

    3) Our God is ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’

    4) Trinity proof from scriptures: ‘I and the Father, are ONE’… (Only Two persons are GOD, here!)

    5) …’If you see me then you see the Father also’ (But you don’t see a THIRD person!)

    6) ‘My Lord and My God’…(Here, despite Thomas being physically shown that Jesus is a FULLY FLEDGED HUMAN BEING, he utters an astounding exclamation that Jesus is GOD…!!!)

    7) …I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea already that trinity maths is suspect!!

    Adding to 6) EVEN MORE ASTOUNDING is the fact that NONE OF THE OTHER  10 disciples bats an eyelid that GOD ALMIGHTY, the Nature and Substance NON-PERSON, SPIRIT that no man may see and live – was standing right there in a small room and claiming to be ‘NOT A SPIRIT’. But be sensible… Remember that Jesus said, ‘If you see me you see the Father, also’… Well, my intellectual, cognoscent, learned colleagues, swallow this for a bitter pill: ‘My Lord: Jesus’…’My God: The Father’. See what I did there… Far from claiming what trini’s say that Thomas was calling Jesus ‘God’, Thomas said he saw ‘The Lord Jesus, and he saw ‘God THE FATHER’…IN JESUS… just as Jesus said… No wonder the other disciples said nothing – they already believed. Jesus’ attitude, behaviour, power,?glory, love and understanding, were a reflection of the God they heard and knew of: ‘The IMAGE OF [the] GOD of the Jews’ – and now children, tell me: ‘Is the IMAGE of something THAT THING it is the image of’?

    #819029
     Jael 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 211

    Addendum..,

    I missed a crucial one…

    6) ‘God sent his son into the world…’ (What was that trinity definition of ‘God’ again: ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, wasn’t it.)

    So, ‘God’ who is BOTH or NEITHER a PERSON or a SUBSTANCE AND NATURE, but nonetheless CONSISTS OF THE THREE PERSONS, one of whom is ‘Son’, ‘SENDS’, God’s SON into the world… Now, please, There is a SON in the three God-person and IT/He has a Son… God’s Son!

    Gods son is God, says LU… That means that Gods Son is both either or none, Substance and nature and a person who is THREE PERSONS: ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’.

    Is that WHY Thomas says thatvjesus is ‘HIS GOD’ (different from the God of the others standing with him?)

    Of course, 1 John 4:5 says, ‘They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.’

    Beware of trinitarian and JiG rhetoric…

    RUN AWAY from them like the JW pair did when they encountered LU… Don’t be enticed by the cookie that crumbles and the coffee that keeps you going – to the loo (no pun intended – or was it!)

    #819047
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @jael

    Seriously, you can’t see it?

    you asked:

    LU, read biblehub: “English Standard Version
    “The LORD possessed me [at the beginning of his work], the first of his acts of old.” (my brackets)

    Where is my ‘misquote’?

    Here is your original quote:

    Suffice it to say that ‘an eternal son’ does not match with ‘possessed me as the first of his works’.

    Those two quotes of yours are very different. The ESV does not say “possessed me as the first of his works.

    Here is the ESV Prov 8

    22“The Lord possessedb me at the beginning of his work,c
    the first of his acts of old.
    23Ages ago I was set up,
    at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
    24When there were no depths I was brought forth,
    when there were no springs abounding with water.
    25Before the mountains had been shaped,
    before the hills, I was brought forth,

    And you have the audacity to “correct” people. Work on your own errors, my young friend. The ESV tells us that wisdom WAS possessed AT the beginning of his work. It does NOT tell us that wisdom was taken possession of as his first work.

    #819048
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @jael

    You are so confused.

    you said:

    Since trinitarians and JiG’s believe they are all the ONE PERSON…

    Trinitarians believe they are three persons. You don’t even seem to know the basics of the trinity doctrine yet you debate it? Is that wise?

    #819049
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @jael

    you said a bunch of wrong asumptions here:

    a.You seem to think that we live by the Nicene Creed. No, Lu, WE (I) DO NOT.

    b.You see no credit given to God for raising Christ: ‘He rose again on the third day’, as if he did so of himself!! This because the creed would have to explain how Jesus is God but had to be raised by someone GREATER – the DEAD cannot raise themself!!

    c.Again, “GOD SEATED HIM at his right hand” but the creed makes out that Jesus “Seated Himself” at the right hand of the Father. This denies the might of the Father over the ‘guest of honor’ which is what ‘The right hand seat’ of the king is for (David seated at the right hand as ‘Son (-in-law-in-waiting of Saul in the O.T.)

    d.The creed also fails to show that the Kingdom that Jesus is to rule over is WITHIN the kingdom of the Father – the kingdom of Heaven… Jesus will rule over the Kingdom of EARTH – which means, “Creation”.

    e.HEAVEN is way greater than EARTH (Creation)… LU, if Jesus is GOD….WHY… is he to rule over something LESS THAN WHAT HE RULES OVER NOW?

    f.Why is Jesus to ‘Come again’… Isn’t God EVER-PRESENT?

    I have added the letters in order to clarify which delusion of yours that I am addressing:

    a. Is the “we” that you speak of your invisible church that has one member? Or can you list the names for me. Has some invisible organization appointed you to represent them? Please tell me the name of your invisible organization?

    b. your opinion only and not based on fact. You cannot back up your opinions here. The creed does not say anything about Jesus raising Himself up from the dead.

    c. The creed states a fact that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. It doesn’t say that Jesus seated Himself there.

    d. Jesus has authority over HEAVEN and earth. Matt 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. The creed does not say anything to discredit this.


    e. Again, He rules over heaven and earth. The Creed does not say that He only rules over earth.

    f. He is as “ever-present” as the Father. I think that you would ask the same question of the Father when Jesus tells his disciples that He is going to go to the Father. Why would He have to go to the Father if the Father were “ever-present?” John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”

    I would suggest that you play Candy Crush instead of debating theology. Someday we will all be judged. If you teach falsely, you will be held accountable by God.

     

    #819050
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 62
    • Total replies 9,896

    @t8

    You speak to Jael as if you agree with him and his theology. Seriously? He doesn’t even believe in the pre-existence of Christ.

    Also, you speak as if I am alone in my beliefs even when the Nicene Creed is what I believe in. Is that wise? Do you think I wrote the Nicene Creed? Do you really believe that I invented that creed? How silly. I’m pretty sure that I haven’t nor has the trinity doctrine created a god from their own mind or from their own image or from their own hands. The Father reveals the Son, the Son reveals the Father.

    Yes. LU lost the plot years ago. But she is an interesting case and has much to teach us about how people went astray and developed tho Trinity Doctrine in the first place. She is teaching the wise indirectly if they observe her thinking patterns which lead to this drunkenness because the whole world has been led astray and is drunk.  Observing her shows us how this happens. Further this same drunkedness took place way back in the days of Nimrod. While I do not understand this tendency, it seems to happen quite a lot. But personally I cannot see the attraction in creating a god from your own mind or from our own image or from our own hands. Perhaps LU could answer that question.

    You have said correctly when you say: “But personally I cannot see…”

    A great example of this is your belief that the Word is an attribute. You posted a quote from Tatian as if that supported your belief when it actually refutes your belief. Apparently, you did not see that either. Tatian was actually saying that the Word is NOT an attribute as he writes that “…the Word himself also, who was in Him…” The Word that existed before he was begotten, came into being in a begotten sense, not in an absolute sense as if He wasn’t existing before His begetting. The pronouns “who” and “himself” demonstrate that Tatian does not refer to an impersonal attribute as the Word. Oh and btw, begetting someone is a work but not a work of creating someone but merely a work of bringing forth someone already existing somewhere else.

    @jael

    you and t8 are an interesting pair. you, jael misquote and you both miss the understanding of a quote on this page alone.

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 750 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