Attn anti-trinitarians: another us verse

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 22 2009,02:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 22 2009,13:03) I have come to the conclusion that we will all be wrong to some degree.  We are all sheep that have gone astray, each one turning to his own way but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.  I want to develop more of a heart that is prepared for growing seed, one of humility and full of love and grace.  I also want more discernment for truth.  I hope that when I do see Him face to face I will already have a heart of humility that realizes that I knew so very little and at the same time I want to stand for the truth that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. So, you might pray for me to go in that direction when you think of it…thanks! Bravo, sister!  Bravo!! Pray for me also to head in that very same direction! Love, Mandy

Great Mandy…we are on the same path
Love,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

The disciples were sent in the same way…the greater sends the lesser, the master sends the slave.  That is how the Son was sent…by His superior-the Father and likewise that is how the disciples are sent, by their superior-Jesus. The one sent follows the example of the one who has sent him.

Kathi,
We agree that the Word became a servant and as Son He was under His Father's authority. What we disagree on is that He was “Son” before His incarnation and that after He was exalted He remained under the Father's authority. He has ALL authority now. On the “Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17” thread you said this,

Quote

Thinker, He definitly had less authority before the resurrection.K (p. 69 last post)

Lightenup said:

Quote

The question is when was He sent into the world.  I believe that it was the day Mary gave birth to her firstborn son.

How do you infer from this that the Word was “Son” in the beginning? The old testament says nothing of a “Son” until Psalm 2:7.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Quote (Tim Kraft @ June 23 2009,01:51)

A thought: In the process of being (mentally) re-born of spirit it is my opinion all words of life and light become united into One. Words of death and destruction will be dissolved into the light as light overcomes and removes darkness. Words are groupings of energy used to create pictures in the mind of a human being. Kind of a clearing house where you can make the choice of which to accept for yourself. Words are like groups of adjectives identifying a thing. God is a term used for identifiyng the source of all existence. God is actually indescribable, and unlimited. Any definition would be a limitation. Hence the term, I AM. Yet God is a term used by some that believe cows are Gods. God is actually what ever a human believes him/her to be. Jesus is all and in all. Jesus is the new temple, Jesus is the light of the temple, Jesus is the door of the temple, the high priest, the showbread, the pastor, the teacher, the evangelist, the prophet etc.! In spiritual understanding all things that are of the spirit of God are one with God. All are equal aspects. I believe we are in a word(spirit) war for understanding(enlightenment) of the Truth from God through Jesus. When Jesus said, “if you've seen me you've seen the father…” he was saying when you understand(see) you will find that we are all ONE. Paul said,”…as we see him, we will be like him, for as he is, so are we, in this world…”! Love and peace to all, TK

Hi TK,
Are you NEW AGE?

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ June 22 2009,17:32)

Lightenup said: Quote The disciples were sent in the same way…the greater sends the lesser, the master sends the slave.  That is how the Son was sent…by His superior-the Father and likewise that is how the disciples are sent, by their superior-Jesus. The one sent follows the example of the one who has sent him. Kathi, We agree that the Word became a servant and as Son He was under His Father's authority. What we disagree on is that He was “Son” before His incarnation and that after He was exalted He remained under the Father's authority. He has ALL authority now. On the “Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17” thread you said this, Quote Thinker, He definitly had less authority before the resurrection.K (p. 69 last post) Lightenup said: Quote The question is when was He sent into the world.  I believe that it was the day Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. How do you infer from this that the Word was “Son” in the beginning? The old testament says nothing of a “Son” until Psalm 2:7. thinker

Thinker,
What is a son? Isn't a son, a true son, an offspring of another, sharing the nature of whom he is from, yet containing a separate will? I see the Light of day one as possibly being an offspring of the always existent LIGHT. I see it as a heavenly being which came from the highest heavenly being. I do not see the light of day one as a heavenly body but as the firstborn heavenly being. He is not the source, the day one Light is His (GOD/the source's) offspring by which GOD enters into our realm. If He is an offspring with an independant will, He is a son. And that is my theory.

Kathi

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,06:19)

Quote (thethinker @ June 22 2009,17:32) Lightenup said: Quote The disciples were sent in the same way…the greater sends the lesser, the master sends the slave.  That is how the Son was sent…by His superior-the Father and likewise that is how the disciples are sent, by their superior-Jesus. The one sent follows the example of the one who has sent him. Kathi, We agree that the Word became a servant and as Son He was under His Father's authority. What we disagree on is that He was “Son” before His incarnation and that after He was exalted He remained under the Father's authority. He has ALL authority now. On the “Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17” thread you said this, Quote Thinker, He definitly had less authority before the resurrection.K (p. 69 last post) Lightenup said: Quote The question is when was He sent into the world.  I believe that it was the day Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. How do you infer from this that the Word was “Son” in the beginning? The old testament says nothing of a “Son” until Psalm 2:7. thinker Thinker, What is a son? Isn't a son, a true son, an offspring of another, sharing the nature of whom he is from, yet containing a separate will?  I see the Light of day one as possibly being an offspring of the always existent LIGHT.  I see it as a heavenly being which came from the highest heavenly being.  I do not see the light of day one as a heavenly body but as the firstborn heavenly being.  He is not the source, the day one Light is His (GOD/the source's) offspring by which GOD enters into our realm.  If He is an offspring with an independant will, He is a son.  And that is my theory.   Kathi

Independent will means independent God. There is only One God and Jesus is His servant.

[Lightenup]

Bo,
Exactly, there is only one source God and if He has a son then that son is the begotten God…independent, not part of the one source but from the one source.  God begets the same nature and the one begotten is called after the same type. Man begets man, GOD begets God.  There is only one source of all, the Most High GOD. His son is not the source of all yet He is the only SON begotten of that source.  The rest that come into being are not begotten, they are created.
Think about it
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,07:00)

Bo, Exactly, there is only one source God and if He has a son then that son is the begotten God…independent, not part of the one source but from the one source.  God begets the same nature and the one begotten is called after the same type. Man begets man, GOD begets God.  There is only one source of all, the Most High GOD. His son is not the source of all yet He is the only SON begotten of that source.  The rest that come into being are not begotten, they are created. Think about it Kathi

bd,
There is no begotten God taught in Scripture in the way Kathi speaks.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
We are lovers of God rather than being just opposed to any strange view of Him.
Trinity is not relevant to the biblical view of God and His Son.

[942767]

Quote (thethinker @ June 21 2009,03:06)

Marty said: Quote Hi thethinker: The “US” here represents God, the Lord, and humanity.  It is just like him sending us into the world to preach the gospel. Marty, What is your proof from the context that the “US” is a reference to God, the Lord and humanity? Furthermore, the word “Lord” (adon or adonai) is Christ (Psalm 110:1). You didn't deal with this part of my post. thinker

Hi thethinker:

Who was Isaiah seeing in this verse of scripture?

Quote

Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,07:00)

Bo, Exactly, there is only one source God and if He has a son then that son is the begotten God…independent, not part of the one source but from the one source.  God begets the same nature and the one begotten is called after the same type. Man begets man, GOD begets God.  There is only one source of all, the Most High GOD. His son is not the source of all yet He is the only SON begotten of that source.  The rest that come into being are not begotten, they are created. Think about it Kathi

So there are two gods?

[Lightenup]

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 24 2009,01:46)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 24 2009,07:00) Bo, Exactly, there is only one source God and if He has a son then that son is the begotten God…independent, not part of the one source but from the one source.  God begets the same nature and the one begotten is called after the same type. Man begets man, GOD begets God.  There is only one source of all, the Most High GOD. His son is not the source of all yet He is the only SON begotten of that source.  The rest that come into being are not begotten, they are created. Think about it Kathi So there are two gods?

Hi Bo,
I depends on your definition of what makes God, God. If your definition insists that God means source of all things, then I would say there is one God. If you wonder what we would consider an only true offspring of that source to be, an only one of the same nature (nature possibly being full of grace and truth)…then I would consider the offspring to be the begotten God. I believe that God would beget God just as man begets man. So, in that sense:

there is one Most High GOD
there is one Begotten God

there are many gods who by nature are not gods at all.

I believe with all my heart that it gives glory and worship to the Father when we also worship His Holy One, the begotten God.
Following the Begotten God leads us to the Most High GOD, the Father.
Serving the Begotten God pleases the Most High GOD, the Father because they are united in purpose.
Trusting the Begotten God pleases the Most High GOD, the Father because it demonstrates to the Father that we have faith in Him (the Father).

Blessings,
Kathi

[Jesus name follower of Christ]

matt 28:19 sais baptizing in the name of THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST, what then is that name , but JESUS

[GeneBalthrop]

Jnfc……………..The original text say in the name of Christ , the rest was added by a over zealous translator, check it out. If you truly follow Jesus you will believe that The Father is the (ONLY) true GOD, as Jesus said, do you? IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………………gene

[TrinitarianCalvinist27]

Quote (Gene @ June 29 2009,07:38)

Jnfc……………..The original text say in the name of Christ , the rest was added by a over zealous translator, check it out.  If you truly follow Jesus you will believe that The Father is the (ONLY) true GOD, as Jesus said, do you? IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………gene

Why do you care so much what Jesus said if he is only a man and not God?

TC27

[NickHassan]

Hi TC,
God was in Christ.

He sent his prophets but they were not listened to or honored but killed.
So the vineyard owner sent his Son but the rebels even dared to kill him.
But that did not somehow make the Son also the vineyard owner who sent him.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Gene @ June 30 2009,03:38)

Jnfc……………..The original text say in the name of Christ , the rest was added by a over zealous translator, check it out.  If you truly follow Jesus you will believe that The Father is the (ONLY) true GOD, as Jesus said, do you? IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………gene

Gene,
Where do you get some of your stuff bro? The inspired Greek text says “in the name of the SON.” I give the inspired, untouched Greek text below and I highlighted the word “Son” in bold:

πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

Even if it did say “Christ” what difference does it make?

Jesus also said in the same breath that He would return to the glory He had with the Father before the world began. Yet you deny His pre-existence. Tell me why you pick and choose what you will and will not believe from the words of Jesus?

thinker

[TrinitarianCalvinist27]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 29 2009,09:45)

Hi TC, God was in Christ. He sent his prophets but they were not listened to or honored but killed. So the vineyard owner sent his Son but the rebels even dared to kill him. But that did not somehow make the Son also the vineyard owner who sent him.

Nick,

You keep on saying that God was in Christ. Well guess what? That is nothing all that special because God is in every Christian. So if we go along with what you are saying then Jesus meant nothing. The only way in which Christ really means anything is if he was God in the flesh.

TC27

[NickHassan]

Hi TC,
So if God is in every Christian and Jesus is one of us and one with us,.
The vine and the branches serving the Gardener.

[NickHassan]

Hi TC,
So if God is in us and that does not make us God but a vessel for God why do you think God being in Jesus makes him God?
Why do men prefer the human fabrication of trinity to what is written?

[Paladin]

Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,05:52)

Quote (Gene @ June 30 2009,03:38) Jnfc……………..The original text say in the name of Christ , the rest was added by a over zealous translator, check it out.  If you truly follow Jesus you will believe that The Father is the (ONLY) true GOD, as Jesus said, do you? IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………gene Gene, Where do you get some of your stuff bro? The inspired Greek text says “in the name of the SON.” I give the inspired, untouched Greek text below and I highlighted the word “Son” in bold: πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, Even if it did say “Christ” what difference does it make? Jesus also said in the same breath that He would return to the glory He had with the Father before the world began. Yet you deny His pre-existence. Tell me why you pick and choose what you will and will not believe from the words of Jesus? thinker

o.k. thinker, tell me what you think of this

Paladin's Major premise
A) Monothiesm is taught in the O.T. scriptures.

Paladin's Minor premise
B) Jesus had a beginning

Paladin's conclusion
C) consequence of A & B is that Jesus is not God.

Structure of the debate
Being that I would be taking the side of affirming the topic (that yes Monothiesm is taught in the scriptures) and you are negating, I would take the first “speech.” Using normal debate structures in competitive philosophical debate, the debate would look like this –

Affirmative constructive (max of 5,000 words) – this is where the affirmative can build his case for his belief

Negative constructive (max of 7,000 words) – this is where the negative can refute the affirmative as well as build his case for his belief

Affirmative rebuttal (max of 4,000 words) – where the affirmative can respond to and defend his case

Negative rebuttal (max of 4,000 words) – negative does the same and makes closing comments

Affirmative rebuttal (max of 3,000 words) – finishes his defense and makes closing comments

Ethics
Obviously the debate would be moderated and thus any perceived ad hominem attacks would be reported. A verified ad hominem attack would result in a warning the first two times, with the third time disqualifying the person from the debate.

Examples of ad hominem would be, “Any “right thinking” Christian would see this,” “You're just redefining scriptures to build your theology.,” etc.

The posting of responses should be timely. This would mean, for our case, SOME response within a week and for the rebuttals as that entails mostly a repeat of points offered in affirming arguments.

What do you think?

[Author]

Posts