- This topic is empty.
- Posts
t8 said;
Quote 2 Corinthians 5:18-19
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself…
In other words, Christ is not really our Savior but the Father alone. Christ really did not carry his own torture stake up the hill. God did it “in” Him.
“who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed”
According to t8's logic Christ did not bear our sins HIMSELF. God bore our sins “in” Him. Arianism is THE LIE because it infers and even in some cases blatantly denies that Christ HIMSELF is our Savior and that He bore our sins HIMSELF.
t8 must revisit his definitions. For God's work of reconciliation “in” Christ necessarily means that God could not have done it without Christ. t8 also needs to study the law of non-contradiction. For Paul's statement does no harm to trinitarianism in the least.
t8 speaks as though Christ was dispensible in the matter.
thinker
Hi TT,
You find fault with the Spirit of God speaking through Paul?
Just like BD .Do you think it is wise to speak against the Spirit of God?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,11:10) Hi TT,
You find fault with the Spirit of God speaking through Paul?
Just like BD .Do you think it is wise to speak against the Spirit of God?
If find fault with the spirit of t8 concerning Paul's words. Paul did not infer that Christ was dispensible in salvation as t8 suggests.thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,12:40) Hi TT,
You quoted the Word of God then judged it.
Why do you think you are above scripture?
No Nick,
I did not judge Paul. I challenged t8's misuse of the scripture. I checked the Greek and the word “in” means “by agency of.”“God was by agency of the Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.”
This means that Christ is THE SAVIOR!
“He (Christ) has become the AUTHOR of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9).
t8 thinks he proves his Arianism. All he proves is that he is a novice in his handling of the scriptures.
thinker
Hi tt,
But you confuse logic with divine wisdom.
Does that mean you can judge those who prefer God's Word?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,13:17) Hi tt,
But you confuse logic with divine wisdom.
Does that mean you can judge those who prefer God's Word?
You judge the author of Hebrews. He said that Christ is the AUTHOR of eternal salvation.thinker
Hi TT,
You should come to him and accept his teachings.
He is the appointed teacher, not Tertullian.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 06 2009,09:43) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,10:53) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 04 2009,19:49) I was just pointing out that you committed another informal fallacy of logic. Nothing more.
Fallacy of logic, or pointing out the consequences of your teaching?The reasoning is not incorrect, because it is taught that Jesus rose from the dead. Not even open for dispute. But the Trinity doctrine is not taught. The so-called foundation is not even mentioned. How weird is that?
Some men think it is inferred. They are entitled to their opinion. They are also entitled to be wrong.
Also, if the Pope handed out pay cheques for those that defend the foundation of his Church, I think you should not only entitled to receive one, but also honorary recognition too. I mean, lets face it, you are not even Catholic and yet do more for that organisation than most Catholics do.
Anyway, serious jesting aside, I would say it is not guilt by association, but really a consequence of your actions.
For example: if a scientist taught the same thing as Hitler's take on evolution and the Jews position in the human tree, then that is not necessarily guilt by association, but this scientist's views would help the Nazi cause, and his views could be quoted in order to support that view. It wouldn't mean that the scientist was actually a Nazi, would it?
It's argued that the precursor to the establishment known as the Roman Catholic Church was 380AD (although this organisation bore little resemblance to the current model(s), in terms of it's doctrines and traditions), this was 50+ years after the codification of the trinity doctrine in 325AD, in the First Council of Nicaea. The doctine preceded the even the earliest development of the RCC T8. So you have a problem there.Also, it's important to note that the doctrine is not exclusive to the Catholics. The vast majority of denominations hold to it. So it's no more a Catholic belief than other doctrines like the incarnation, ascention and resurrection of Christ.
What are you going on about now?You are always looking for ways outside of scripture to make your point of view the winning view. I think you need to go into the New Zealand bush or Australian Outback for a year and have a good think about what you are actually doing with your life.
For the record: I have never said that the RCC formed and then imposed the Trinity Doctrine for the first time. I never said that it was their invention.
I think it goes something like this from what I understand.
Roman Empire > Holy Roman Empire > RCC
The Trinity doctrine developed before Athanasius and perhaps even before Tertullian, who knows. But it was during the time of the Roman Empire that it shows up. Sometime after the books of the bible were first written.
The Empire made the doctrine official and it was carried through to the Holy Roman Empire (with some swings of the pendulum), and it is now the foundation of the RCC, many of her daughters, and now you.
We reject that whole set up and instead rely on what Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul taught. We go to the source and bypass tradition.
For US there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that. I belong to that truth. You oppose it.
I care not (except for exposing the lies) for all the politics and traditions that men including yourself try to impose (open or veiled threats), of resistance, persecution, defamation, excommunication, damnation, torture, burning at the stake, or whatever else is hurled at those who wish not to comply with traditions of men and doctrines of demons and men. Especially those who refused to comply with the Trinity doctrine. Many have even been killed by Trinity Henchmen in the past.
Given that history, I am not surprised that you are enraged at us and come here in the spirit of persecution. Can you not see that you are being used as a pawn in a much bigger game than the one you are playing? You are being used because you are open to being used.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,00:14) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 06 2009,09:43) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,10:53) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 04 2009,19:49) I was just pointing out that you committed another informal fallacy of logic. Nothing more.
Fallacy of logic, or pointing out the consequences of your teaching?The reasoning is not incorrect, because it is taught that Jesus rose from the dead. Not even open for dispute. But the Trinity doctrine is not taught. The so-called foundation is not even mentioned. How weird is that?
Some men think it is inferred. They are entitled to their opinion. They are also entitled to be wrong.
Also, if the Pope handed out pay cheques for those that defend the foundation of his Church, I think you should not only entitled to receive one, but also honorary recognition too. I mean, lets face it, you are not even Catholic and yet do more for that organisation than most Catholics do.
Anyway, serious jesting aside, I would say it is not guilt by association, but really a consequence of your actions.
For example: if a scientist taught the same thing as Hitler's take on evolution and the Jews position in the human tree, then that is not necessarily guilt by association, but this scientist's views would help the Nazi cause, and his views could be quoted in order to support that view. It wouldn't mean that the scientist was actually a Nazi, would it?
It's argued that the precursor to the establishment known as the Roman Catholic Church was 380AD (although this organisation bore little resemblance to the current model(s), in terms of it's doctrines and traditions), this was 50+ years after the codification of the trinity doctrine in 325AD, in the First Council of Nicaea. The doctine preceded the even the earliest development of the RCC T8. So you have a problem there.Also, it's important to note that the doctrine is not exclusive to the Catholics. The vast majority of denominations hold to it. So it's no more a Catholic belief than other doctrines like the incarnation, ascention and resurrection of Christ.
What are you going on about now?You are always looking for ways outside of scripture to make your point of view the winning view. I think you need to go into the New Zealand bush or Australian Outback for a year and have a good think about what you are actually doing with your life.
For the record: I have never said that the RCC formed and then imposed the Trinity Doctrine for the first time. I never said that it was their invention.
I think it goes something like this from what I understand.
Roman Empire > Holy Roman Empire > RCC
The Trinity doctrine developed before Athanasius and perhaps even before Tertullian, who knows. But it was during the time of the Roman Empire that it shows up. Sometime after the books of the bible were first written.
The Empire made the doctrine official and it was carried through to the Holy Roman Empire (with some swings of the pendulum), and it is now the foundation of the RCC, many of her daughters, and now you.
We reject that whole set up and instead rely on what Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul taught. We go to the source and bypass tradition.
For US there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that. I belong to that truth. You oppose it.
I care not (except for exposing the lies) for all the politics and traditions that men including yourself try to impose (open or veiled threats), of resistance, persecution, defamation, excommunication, damnation, torture, burning at the stake, or whatever else is hurled at those who wish not to comply with traditions of men and doctrines of demons and men. Especially those who refused to comply with the Trinity doctrine. Many have even been killed by Trinity Henchmen in the past.
Given that history, I am not surprised that you are enraged at us and come here in the spirit of persecution. Can you not see that you are being used as a pawn in a much bigger game than the one you are playing? You are being used because you are open to being used.
t8Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,00:14) I care not (except for exposing the lies) for all the politics and traditions that men including yourself try to impose (open or veiled threats), of resistance, persecution, defamation, excommunication, damnation, torture, burning at the stake, or whatever else is hurled at those who wish not to comply with traditions of men and doctrines of demons and men. Especially those who refused to comply with the Trinity doctrine. Many have even been killed by Trinity Henchmen in the past. Given that history, I am not surprised that you are enraged at us and come here in the spirit of persecution. Can you not see that you are being used as a pawn in a much bigger game than the one you are playing? You are being used because you are open to being used.
Would you care to expound to us how you see your above statement in Pauls post?Or is this just more of your patronizing attitude toward those who disagree with you and your Henotheistic doctrine?
Are you angry that he was able to elequantly refute your Henotheistic views in the debates?
What gives?
BTW, you are also being disengenuos about the “Trinitarians” spilling of blood, for history shows the spilling of blood by the Arians and many Trinitarians being exciled and dying by their hands, and they ruled for sometime, but you ignore this, so you create a straw man.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,16:14) What are you going on about now? For the record: I have never said that the RCC formed and then imposed the Trinity Doctrine for the first time. I never said that it was their invention.
Time and time again you've associated the trinity doctrine with the RCC, the inescapable inference is that it's a Catholic doctrine. Maybe you don't realise you do it. Here's one example. Read your own words from page 31 of this thread (emphasis mine):Quote Of course you are free to side with scripture or the lie. So far you support and promote that lie called the Trinity Doctrine, the foundation of the Roman Catholic faith. You are working indirectly for the Pope, but probably don't realise it because you preach the Roman Catholic Faith which is the Trinity doctrine.“
It's the guilt by association fallacy. Very clumsy reasoning. That is what I'm “going on about now”. The post I quoted was just a variation on a theme.Quote You are always looking for ways outside of scripture to make your point of view the winning view. I think you need to go into the New Zealand bush or Australian Outback for a year and have a good think about what you are actually doing with your life.
T8, I've said this to you before but I think I may need to repeat it. I don't need a life coach and if I did I don't think you'd be at the top of my list (nothing personal). My life is just fine. I don't make these patronising comments to you and I'd appreciate it if you could do the same.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,16:14) For US there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that. I belong to that truth. You oppose it.
I've got no issue with 1 Cor 8:6, as you well know. Lord knows we've been through that verse a few times! (and He does too). And if I recall correctly the debate ended pretty abruptly when I asked you if the Father was your Lord as well as your God. Of course you can't really answer that. If you answered “yes” then you concede that Paul could not have been drawing an ontological contra-distinction between Yeshua and the Father. If you answered “no” then you have denyed the Father His rightful Lordship, thereby blaspheming.Quote Given that history, I am not surprised that you are enraged at us and come here in the spirit of persecution. Can you not see that you are being used as a pawn in a much bigger game than the one you are playing? You are being used because you are open to being used.
I find this a truly bizaare statement. Show me where I was “enraged” and “persecuted” you or anyone else. I don't get it.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 06 2009,01:34) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,16:14) For US there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that. I belong to that truth. You oppose it.
I've got no issue with 1 Cor 8:6, as you well know. Lord knows we've been through that verse a few times! (and He does too). And if I recall correctly the debate ended pretty abruptly when I asked you if the Father was your Lord as well as your God. Of course you can't really answer that. If you answered “yes” then you concede that Paul could not have been drawing an ontological contra-distinction between Yeshua and the Father. If you answered “no” then you have denyed the Father His rightful Lordship, thereby blaspheming.Quote Given that history, I am not surprised that you are enraged at us and come here in the spirit of persecution. Can you not see that you are being used as a pawn in a much bigger game than the one you are playing? You are being used because you are open to being used.
I find this a truly bizaare statement. Show me where I was “enraged” and “persecuted” you or anyone else. I don't get it.
Please explain to me how answering yes concedes that Paul could not have been drawing an ontological contra-distinction between Yeshua and the Father?Thank you
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 06 2009,23:06) Please explain to me how answering yes concedes that Paul could not have been drawing an ontological contra-distinction between Yeshua and the Father? Thank you
Okay. Non-trinitarians often use this verse as a proof text in an attempt to 'prove' that Yeshua is not God. The underlying assumption is that Lord and God denote two distinct ontological categories. The Father is “God” to the exclusion of Yeshua, Who is not God in any sense of the word (to us). If that's true then the reverse is also proven- i.e. Yeshua is Lord to the exclusion of the Father and the Father is not Lord in any sense of the word (to us).Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 07 2009,18:26) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 06 2009,23:06) Please explain to me how answering yes concedes that Paul could not have been drawing an ontological contra-distinction between Yeshua and the Father? Thank you
Okay. Non-trinitarians often use this verse as a proof text in an attempt to 'prove' that Yeshua is not God. The underlying assumption is that Lord and God denote two distinct ontological categories. The Father is “God” to the exclusion of Yeshua, Who is not God in any sense of the word (to us). If that's true then the reverse is also proven- i.e. Yeshua is Lord to the exclusion of the Father and the Father is not Lord in any sense of the word (to us).
Hi Brother Paul:When we obey Jesus, we are obeying God because the commandments that Jesus taught and obeyed came to us from God.
And so, I do not see what you are trying to prove by this. There is the LORD who is above all as Ephesians 4:6 states, and the same LORD made Jesus Lord and Christ.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Oct. 08 2009,14:46) When we obey Jesus, we are obeying God because the commandments that Jesus taught and obeyed came to us from God.
Yes, but strange how Yeshua calls them “my” commandments (John 14:15). Almost like He took ownership of them. Pretty audacious really, unless they really were His.Quote And so, I do not see what you are trying to prove by this. There is the LORD who is above all as Ephesians 4:6 states, and the same LORD made Jesus Lord and Christ.
Not trying to prove anything. 1 Corinthians 8:6 neither proves nor disproves trinitarianism. That was sorta my point. Why don't you ask t8 what he was trying to prove with this statement?Quote For US there is one God the Father and one lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that. I belong to that truth. You oppose it. BTW, Ephesians 4:6 states this:
“one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”
Reads a little differently than your quote. Sure that's the right verse?
Blessings friend
Hi Is 1.18,
The commandments of Jesus are different from the ten commandments.EG
love one another as I have loved you.
you must be born again…..We serve the God of Jesus and the Israelites.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2009,23:28) Hi Is 1.18,
The commandments of Jesus are different from the ten commandments.EG
love one another as I have loved you.
you must be born again…..We serve the God of Jesus and the Israelites.
Hi Is 1.18,
The commandments of Jesus are different from the ten commandments.Are they?
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. Mark 12:30
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
———————————————————–
And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:31
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Seems they are one and the same to me.
———————————————————–
Also are they the Commandments of Jesus? Or did he just re-iterate them?
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. Mark 12:30
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Deuteronomy 6:5
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; Deuteronomy 7:9
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, Deuteronomy 10:12
———————————————————–
And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:31
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob [him]: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Leviticus 19:13
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD. Leviticus 19:18
Let the scriptures breath.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
