- This topic has 858 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I am not opposing you per se. I am not even opposing you for your JW comment. That is between you God and the JWs. I am not included here.
But I do refute doctrines from people that do the following:
1) Teach anyone else but the Father as being the one true God;
2) Teach anyone else but Jesus/Yeshua as being the appointed Lord of all;
3) Teach plural persons as being the one true God;
4) Oppose me or persecute me for saying that the one true God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If you have none of the above, then I won’t oppose you on the nature and identity of God. However, I still do not understand your comments about me reading too many books and other silly assertions. For what purpose is this? To me it is because you must disagree with what I teach which is outlined in those 4 point. If so, which of the points are you against?T8,
The fact is that your are opposing me, without really knowing why.Let’s look at your points:
You will refute anyone who does the following:
1) Teach anyone else but the Father as being the one true God;
2) Teach anyone else but Jesus Yeshua as being the appointed Lord of all;
3) Teach plural persons as being the one true God;
4) Oppose me or persecute me for
saying that the one true God is the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.So, my reply is:
1) I believe in one true God, the Father. I do not believe in any other Gods.
2) I believe that Jesus is the Lord.
3) I believe in one God who manifests himself through his Spirit, the Holy Spirit. This is the one true God.
4) I could not imagine many Christians opposing you for teaching that the one true God is the Father of Jesus.So….. I don’t get it.
A Christian is a Christian.
Why separate yourself from other believers just due to a difference in understanding things? I mean there are worse things to worry about than that – such ad do we as Christians obey God’s commandments; Do we love and forgive? Are we humble? Do we serve God and wealth? Etc etc.
But, honestly…. I think the arguments between Trinitarians and other believers in Christ and God are meaningless, and no fruit comes from it (on both sides).Don’t you feel more comfortable keeping opinion to yourself whilst joining other Christians in some way, and sharing a common bond? Because I know I do. My common bond is with Seventh Day Adventists though I am not one. Their belief in Trinity/Jesus as God does not worry me one bit. They do not believe in eternal conscious torment, and that to me IS important, and they are spirit filled.
Maybe if I was married and my partner was Christian I would be happy to just share with them (where two or three are gathered) but, I’m not, so : it would be pretty lonely if there were not some people who are Christians to talk with now and then.
My comment about ‘putting away your books’ followed your comment the day before (can’t even remember what it was). See – plank.
Wondering, if you go back in our dialogue, you will see that you have said this and that about me, without me opposing you. I thought it was strange and couldn’t understand exactly what it was you were opposing me for, but when people oppose me like that in the past it is usually because I defend the truth that there is one God the Father, and that he is the only true God. This seems to make people irritate, and had no reason to think otherwise with you. Especially when you told me to throw away the books I read, and other such comments, and something along the lines of not reading scripture as it is written.
Further, you came against me with the same arguments that I hear time and time again from those who promote the Trinity Doctrine, that is, that I say that Jesus is a god, when I do not say that. I teach that there is neither a definite or indefinite article in John 1:1c and this is significant.
So what about just laying off all that stuff and getting into scripture instead, that way I will not think you are opposing me which is what people do when they believe differently to you. And as you said yourself, you agree with my four points.
I would appreciate that because at the end of the day, I just want to discuss scripture as that is what this site is for. I am not here to win arguments, but to learn the truth and defend the truth and refute anything that comes against the truth.
My source is scripture, so I can be swayed by any belief if it can be clearly demonstrated in scripture. I am not an unreasonable person. After all, I like many just assumed that Christianity was the Trinity until I started digging and I have stopped digging ever since. My goal is to know more precious truths of God when I read scripture and talk to others here. It is not a contest. I would rather lose a debate when I am wrong, than win a debate when I am wrong. How would the latter help me? It wouldn’t.“However, I still do not understand your comments about mereading too many books and other silly assertions”
I honestly was just writing as it came to me with that short post. So, how do you not know it was not inspired, and rather than hear, you were upset by it. I’m not saying it definitely was – but you never know. Plus: it is in scripture.
“Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecclesiastes.I do believe that between you and Mike, everything has become a debate which needs to be won – maybe not so much you – but you are heading that way, and if I’m being blunt… It is better than speaking soothing words, which can mislead! I have been there myself (with debate and discussion) and know that it was not good for me.
I noticed DavidL speaking a lot of truths, but also noticed your reluctance to hear.
But, on saying that, I believe you also think about things.
God disciplines those he loves.Regarding discussing scripture : I’m reading the Bible from the start, so, I’d rather just continue reading without discussions (with anyone), thanks.
Unless you want to ask a question, I’ll answer as best I can.
I don’t mean you any harm at all t8, and can absolutely understand your interest in finding truth. I’m the same.
There you go again Wondering. Making criticisms about people. I myself and I know Mike would much prefer that we focused on scripture. But instead we get criticised and I know why. It is because we refute others using scripture, and when they cannot answer, they turn to criticism because it is all they have left. This happened to Jesus. He was mainly criticised by the religious of the day and his words were basically ignored. If they had stuck to scripture and searched things out to see if what he said was so, then they could have been taught by the son of God. Instead, they judged him for not washing his hands, eating wheat kernels on the Sabbath (something ludicrous like that), and I am sure that he got a lot of bad rap when he tossed the money changers out of the temple.
Next. You mention David as inspiring. I disagree. He is just bent on defending an extra-biblical doctrine at any cost. Even at the cost of Jesus, Paul, and Peter’s own words which I remind him almost on a daily basis. I will be blunt as you say you have been. I have no respect for that type of behaviour. He doesn’t even give an answer to these scriptures when he is shown them. At the end of the day, it would be my own fault if believed in the Trinity Doctrine because of pressure, when scripture is clear that the Father is the only true God. I would be held accountable for letting myself be bewitched when I started in the truth of scripture and ended up in the traditions of men. No thanks. If it contradicts scripture, then it is wrong and I stand by that.
And again you are wrong about me wanting to win arguments for argument sake. In the forums, I have been debating those who try to push all manner of tradition and doctrine on me and others. If they can prove what they say using the scripture or even if it doesn’t contradict scripture, then I will listen. If they contradict it, I will say so, it is as simple as that. I will show them where the contradiction is, and more often that not, I get no response on the scripture, more preaching from them of the same, and more criticism. That is the pattern I have observed many many times.
Show me the scripture, or show me something that doesn’t contradict scripture, and I will take you seriously. Contradict it with no explanation when it is pointed out, and I no longer take you seriously.An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.
Titus 1:9: He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.Wondering,
Did you know that the 7th day Adventists and jehovah witnesses both originated from the Advent Movement of the 1800s that was based on a man named Williams Miller and his prophecies. Theses people broke apart when his prophecy didn’t come true. Some followed Ellen G. white becoming Adventists and the others followed Charles Taze Russell and became witnesses. The majority of the Adventist teachings are the same as held to by the Watchtower Society. The main differences is that they generally adhere to the sabbath and the trinity. Interesting isn’t it. Google it!
Hi David,
You quoted this……………….. however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article………………..
I will counter with the following information from the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars who produced the NET Bible:
…………………Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb……………………
Can you see that there are THREE possibilities for a faithful translation? “THE god”, “A god”, and “qualitatively god”. Do you further see that Colwell’s Rule does not DEMAND a definite article, rather than an indefinite one? It only ALLOWS FOR it.
They go on to say: ……………….The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)……………….
So even these TRINITARIAN scholars acknowledge that “a god” is a possibility. And they are sensible enough to realize that part b, “the Word was WITH God”, rules out the possibility that the Word was actually “the PERSON of God”.
The question is: Are YOU sensible enough to realize that as well?
At any rate, you haven’t shown me that the NWT version of 1:1 is faulty, impossible, or unfaithful. You have only brought to our attention that it makes much more sense for “a god” to have been WITH God in the beginning than it does for our one and only Almighty God to have been WITH Himself.
Hi wondering,
I hear “the Spirit must show you” more often than I can count. But to me those people are really saying, “God didn’t create us with a mind and common sense that is capable of reading written words and figuring out what they mean.”
I reject that thought. We all have God-given common sense. The fact of the scriptures is that there exist many gods, both in heaven and on earth, but only one MOST HIGH god who created all things. And that only leaves one question: Is Jesus that Most High God who created all things? Or is he the SON OF that Most High God? Because he can’t be both. So, which answer can be found in scripture?
Man, I could write a mile long list of scriptural proofs. But for now, just consider the prayer in Acts 4:24-30. They prayed TO the “Sovereign Lord who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and EVERYTHING in them.” And in verses 29-30, they say, “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of YOUR HOLY SERVANT JESUS.”
So I ask you: Is Jesus the “Sovereign Lord who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and EVERYTHING IN THEM”? Or is he the “HOLY SERVANT OF” that One?
The SCRIPTURAL answer is the latter………. which, by necessity excludes the former. And not only that, but if Jesus is not the “Sovereign Lord who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and EVERYTHING IN THEM”, then he has no choice but to BE one of the “everything in them” that was made BY that Sovereign Lord.
And yes, wondering, while I always seek guidance from the Spirit, I used my brain and my God-given common sense to sort that out.
It seems to me that it is only people whose doctrines AREN’T taught in the scriptures that use that “the Spirit must show you” diversion.
But we are taught to TEST the spirits, right? And what, if not SCRIPTURE, are we to test them against?
David said…………. “Yet there are many passages of Scripture that show the three separate Persons of the Godhead working together.”………………
Here’s one for you:
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.What does it mean that “the head of Christ is God”? Does it mean the head of Christ is the Trinity Godhead?
Here’s another, David:
John 20:17
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”To me, these words from Jesus make it obvious that Jesus and we have the same exact God and Father. Our one and only Almighty God is also Jesus’ one and only Almighty God. Perhaps that’s why some of us will become BROTHERS to Jesus, and SONS to God.
Surely you don’t think you will ever become God’s BROTHER, do you David?
DavidL says:
October 14, 2013 at 1:31 am
You say my belief contradicts Scripture..I say your logic contradicts belief..!!
Hmmmm…………. Isn’t that a little like me believing the earth is flat, when all the evidence suggests it is round? And then, when you use that evidence, along with your God-given logic to prove to me it’s round, I say, “Your logic contradicts my belief!!” 🙂
Why are some of you so afraid of the scriptures? Why is it a “no-no” for us to study this Book, and learn all we can about what’s inside it? It’s like some of you just want to close your eyes to the scriptures, and slam us when we use them to prove what we’re claiming. It’s like you’re saying, “I don’t really care what the scriptures say, or even if they prove my doctrine wrong. As long as “the spirit” is telling me the way it is, that’s all I need. And people who pour over scripture after scripture should be ashamed for using their logic to gain a better understanding of God and our history.”
I just don’t get it.
Mike,
(I’m not a trinitarian as such).You say that God cannot possibly be the word that he is with.
Firstly: Word (logos) = God’s own spoken word.
So let’s look at that with other scriptures; from Mike’s point of view:
God cannot have love with him, and also be love… (scripture says that God is love)
God cannot have light with him, and also be light… (scripture says that God is light)So then:
According to Mike and his scholars:
God is not love, God is not light, because God cannot be something that he is with (possesses).
That’s quite a profound statement, Mike.God is not light, God is not logos, God is not love…. Because he cannot possibly be something he possesses…. Hm..
Mike, I believe I have just proven your common sense to be faulty!
Interesting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
