One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
Have This In Your Mind: Debunking the Trinitarian “interpretation” of Philippians 2:5–12 for the Gnostic idea they have of Christ
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
Nov 14, 2019 14:52:49   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
TommyRadd wrote:
Well, miracles are a form of logical impossibilities.

But saying God can operate in ways we would see as contradictions is too often used as a lead in to say God can do or can be something He has specifically spoken against.

If God’s first commandment in time was don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “could” that mean He really meant eating of it would make people as gods?

If God’s first commandment in importance is “the Lord our God is one Lord and you shall worship HIM with all your heart...” “could” that mean God really meant He was a “three them” and we are to understand Him in a way He commanded us against? What kind of a God would that be?

He could only be understood as meaning the opposite of what He said in both instances if we use the same faulty reasoning in both instances. We clearly see the disobedience in the first example, so why is it so hard to see the same disobedience in the second one? It’s simply because the first one wasn’t our own personal temptation like the latter one is...for some of us.

So we learn, people have this tendency to excuse or justify plain old disobedience, based on God’s Omni-this or that, instead of accepting where the responsibility really lies: in a heart of disbelief.

Remember, the scripture says we can know God:

“For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.” Romans 1:20

"You are my witnesses," says Yahweh, "And my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.“ Isaiah 43:10

“10But to us, God revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God's Spirit. 12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.” 1 Corinthians 2:10-13

Here’s one of the ways to test the spirit in people:

“If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:37

The things the apostles wrote are commandments, not suggestions, as if they are open for discussion and negation like the devil did in the Garden, or the Pharisees did with the law, or the Trinitarians did through their councils and creeds.

“5The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?"
6He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8"For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things."
9He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:5-12

If God viewed the Israelite’s traditions of men, that made His commandments of none effect, as empty and useless as far as worshiping Him goes, why do people think He’ll give them a pass on their own traditions (I.e. Trinity or modalism or whatever)?

“For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a law-breaker” Galatians 2:18

Does God break His own law?

Does God lie in order to teach us truth? It is impossible for God to lie.

Did God renounce traditions of men that negate His commandments so we would learn to multiply and depend on traditions of men rather than His commandments? Or otherwise?

It seems to me the “otherwise” is the “simple” version, and the “God can be or do anything He wants even if it sounds like He’s lying” isn’t so simple, after all, in truth.

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: yet in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” 1 Corinthians 14:20
Well, miracles are a form of logical impossibiliti... (show quote)

======================================

"The things the apostiles wrote are commandments"... you wrote. Does that include the Apostiles Creed? If so are there versions of the AC that diminish the role of the Holy Spirit? This can be a serious matter.

Reply
Nov 14, 2019 20:55:23   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
manning5 wrote:
======================================

"The things the apostiles wrote are commandments"... you wrote. Does that include the Apostiles Creed? If so are there versions of the AC that diminish the role of the Holy Spirit? This can be a serious matter.


The apostles creed was not written by the apostles.

Reply
Nov 14, 2019 22:00:21   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
TommyRadd wrote:
The apostles creed was not written by the apostles.


============================

So who did write the creed? and, why is it so labelled?

Reply
 
 
Nov 15, 2019 05:57:51   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
manning5 wrote:
============================

So who did write the creed? and, why is it so labelled?


There are many theories, and I’m not an expert. Do an internet search in “who wrote the apostles creed” and do some research.

The Bible warns over and over of false teachers, false apostles and false prophets.

Anyone with the audacity to negate the first commandment would have the audacity to forge a creed and claim the apostles authored it to give their claims the appearance of legitimacy.

Such scoundrels were just as rampant in the early days of Christianity, particularly after the apostles, as they are now.

Reply
Nov 16, 2019 01:04:01   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
TommyRadd wrote:
There are many theories, and I’m not an expert. Do an internet search in “who wrote the apostles creed” and do some research.

The Bible warns over and over of false teachers, false apostles and false prophets.

Anyone with the audacity to negate the first commandment would have the audacity to forge a creed and claim the apostles authored it to give their claims the appearance of legitimacy.

Such scoundrels were just as rampant in the early days of Christianity, particularly after the apostles, as they are now.
There are many theories, and I’m not an expert. Do... (show quote)


===================================

Thank you for your reply. I will research this matter, since I have lived by the Apostle's Creed for some time. It occurs to me that there is a deliberate parallel here with the Nicene Creed, which has had quite a number of versions, while both creeds reflect the Trinity and the basic tenets of Christianity.

To put a more positive slant on this subject, there seems to be a long attempt to make the AC a much more simple version of the NC for consumption of followers in various sects of Christianity, all the while putting forth a Trinitarian view and the fundamentals of Christianity. By whom I have no idea.

I was quite startled by your post that set forth the idea that the Trinity concept is false. It appears to run counter to the belief of most of the Christian sects with which I am familiar: Belief in the Trinity=God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible that the anti-Trinity idea will be an extremely hard sell to these sects, that have millions of followers.

Reply
Nov 18, 2019 12:13:42   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
manning5 wrote:
===================================

Thank you for your reply. I will research this matter, since I have lived by the Apostle's Creed for some time. It occurs to me that there is a deliberate parallel here with the Nicene Creed, which has had quite a number of versions, while both creeds reflect the Trinity and the basic tenets of Christianity.

To put a more positive slant on this subject, there seems to be a long attempt to make the AC a much more simple version of the NC for consumption of followers in various sects of Christianity, all the while putting forth a Trinitarian view and the fundamentals of Christianity. By whom I have no idea.

I was quite startled by your post that set forth the idea that the Trinity concept is false. It appears to run counter to the belief of most of the Christian sects with which I am familiar: Belief in the Trinity=God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible that the anti-Trinity idea will be an extremely hard sell to these sects, that have millions of followers.
=================================== br br Thank y... (show quote)


My sense of things regarding the Holy Spirit is:
1. God's Spirit
2. God's restraints
3. God's Powers
4. Has personhood
5. Communicates with Man
6. Can be visible as a Spirit, or not
7. Is the third member of the Trinity.

Read Acts

Reply
Nov 18, 2019 13:32:41   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
manning5 wrote:
My sense of things regarding the Holy Spirit is:
1. God's Spirit
2. God's restraints
3. God's Powers
4. Has personhood
5. Communicates with Man
6. Can be visible as a Spirit, or not
7. Is the third member of the Trinity.

Read Acts


Matthew 28:19 ESV / 108 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Reply
 
 
Nov 19, 2019 08:22:53   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
manning5 wrote:
My sense of things regarding the Holy Spirit is:
1. God's Spirit
2. God's restraints
3. God's Powers
4. Has personhood
5. Communicates with Man
6. Can be visible as a Spirit, or not
7. Is the third member of the Trinity.

Read Acts


I can see where you could come to the conclusion of a Trinity...

If you ignore the fact that Jesus said the Jews knew what they worshiped...

And if you ignore the fact they were adamant that God was one in personality...

And if you ignore that the first commandment is that God is one He...

And if you ignore the fact that the apostles commanded not to teach (explain or expound in) other teachings than they taught...

And if you ignore the fact that the apostles didn't ever preach (openly proclaim) even the idea of the Trinity, let alone it being part of the good news (gospel) that is to be believed for salvation...

And if you ignore that the apostles said if anyone preach any other good news they were to be called accursed...

And if you ignore the fact that the apostles warned against going to worldly philosophy, nor would they use philosophy to preach or teach Christ...

And if you ignore the fact that the ones the apostles called anti-Christian, who merged Christian words with pagan philosophical concepts, and were thereby the ones who first came up with the word Trinity and it's concept...

And if you ignore the fact that Justin Martyr, began merging philosophy with Christianity and thereby began talking of two and three gods...

And if you ignore the fact that Tertullian, also one of the earlier Trinitarian trailblazers (who believed there was a time when the son was not), was accused of, and admitted, that he got his ideas of projections of one God out of another from the antichristian gnostics...

And if you ignore the fact that the antichristian gnostics were the ones who, as Irenaeus testified, invented the doctrine of "dual natures" whereby Christ could be conceived of and explained as both God and man at the same time, and Irenaeus called it blasphemy, and he said it was that doctrine that was the reason for which John wrote against the antichristians...

And if you ignore that Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was trained by John, said the antichristian idea of one God produced out of another before all creation would be impossible because there would be nowhere for this other god to be born into, and would be superfluous if that God didn't get born out of the godhead but remained within it, he thereby rejected both the antichristian idea and the Trinitarian idea after them based in the same concept, showing the earlier Christians didn't believe in such a thing, but were adamantly against it...

And if you ignore the fact that Tertullian, contrary to Irenaeus before him, adopted the antichristian gnostic doctrine of "dual natures"...

And if you ignore the fact that the idea of the "eternal generation" of the son wasn't even invented until Origen c. 184 – 253 AD (after both Irenaeus and Origen)...

And if you ignore the fact that the Trinity was made an "official" doctrine at a council presided over by Emperor Constantine, who, because Rome was bequeathed the throne of Satan as spoken of by Jesus in Revelation 2:13...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, and once the Trinitarians made the Trinity doctrine the law of the land they began murdering and rioting and all manner of unrighteousness against those who wouldn't go along with their newly defined Trinity doctrine...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus was described as "a man approved of God", and that many Scriptures teach that he was exalted because of his righteousness...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus said eternal life was to know his Father as the only true God...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus explained himself, not as the person of God, but as the son and agent (representative) of God...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus died, but God can't die...

Under those conditions, and others that could be added to the list of biblical teachings you'd have to ignore, then and only then, yes, I can see how you'd conclude that God was a Trinity.

But I for one can't ignore these facts.

I can't and won't ignore the fact that it is the one who died for my sins who told me he could do nothing of himself, through his words in the Bible, and led me on this path to know him and his Father, and my Father, and his God, and my God.

It was men who didn't die for my sins, who don't keep Jesus' commandment that God is one He, who developed and taught the Trinity. It was men who were disobedient to the apostle's commandment to teach no other doctrine that ignored that commandment also and arrogantly took it upon themselves to teach things the apostles would have had no knowledge of...they are the ones who developed and taught the Trinity.

I've read and studied the book of Acts many times. The second chapter should tell you what you need to know. The Jews had put Jesus to death because they claimed he said and did things that made himself out to be equal to God. The apostles told them to repent of that idea, and believe instead that Jesus was "a man approved of God by mighty works that God did by him".

I choose to believe in the Jesus that apostles openly proclaimed, not the one invented by the imaginations of evil, disobedient, lying, men.

"13"Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. 14How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14

Edited

Reply
Nov 19, 2019 08:36:24   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
TommyRadd wrote:
I can see where you could come to the conclusion of a Trinity...

If you ignore the fact that Jesus said the Jews knew what they worshiped...

And if you ignore the fact they were adamant that God was one in personality...

And if you ignore that the first commandment is that God is one He...

And if you ignore the fact that the apostles commanded not to teach (explain or expound in) other teachings than they taught...

And if you ignore the fact that the apostles didn't ever preach (openly proclaim) even the idea of the Trinity, let alone it being part of the good news (gospel) that is to be believed for salvation...

And if you ignore that the apostles said if anyone preach any other good news they were to be called accursed...

And if you ignore the fact that the apostles warned against going to worldly philosophy, nor would they use philosophy to preach or teach Christ...

And if you ignore the fact that the ones the apostles called anti-Christian, who merged Christian words with pagan philosophical concepts, and were thereby the ones who first came up with the word Trinity and it's concept...

And if you ignore the fact that Justin Martyr, began merging philosophy with Christianity and thereby began talking of two and three gods...

And if you ignore the fact that Tertullian, also one of the earlier Trinitarian trailblazers (who believed there was a time when the son was not), was accused of, and admitted, that he got his ideas of projections of one God out of another from the antichristian gnostics...

And if you ignore the fact that the antichristian gnostics were the ones who, as Irenaeus testified, invented the doctrine of "dual natures" whereby Christ could be conceived of and explained as both God and man at the same time, and Irenaeus called it blasphemy, and he said it was that doctrine that was the reason for which John wrote against the antichristians...

And if you ignore that Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was trained by John, said the antichristian idea of one God produced out of another before all creation would be impossible because there would be nowhere for this other god to be born into, and would be superfluous if that God didn't get born out of the godhead but remained within it, he thereby rejected both the antichristian idea and the Trinitarian idea after them based in the same concept, showing the earlier Christians didn't believe in such a thing, but were adamantly against it...

And if you ignore the fact that Tertullian, contrary to Irenaeus before him, adopted the antichristian gnostic doctrine of "dual natures"...

And if you ignore the fact that the idea of the "eternal generation" of the son wasn't even invented until Origen c. 184 – 253 AD (after both Irenaeus and Origen)...

And if you ignore the fact that the Trinity was made an "official" doctrine at a council presided over by Emperor Constantine, who, because Rome was bequeathed the throne of Satan as spoken of by Jesus in Revelation 2:13...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus said you would know them by their fruits, and once the Trinitarians made the Trinity doctrine the law of the land they began murdering and rioting and all manner of unrighteousness against those who wouldn't go along with their newly defined Trinity doctrine...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus was described as "a man approved of God", and that many Scriptures teach that he was exalted because of his righteousness...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus said eternal life was to know his Father as the only true God...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus explained himself, not as the person of God, but as the son and agent (representative) of God...

And if you ignore the fact that Jesus died, but God can't die...

Under those conditions, and others that could be added to the list of biblical teachings you'd have to ignore, then and only then, yes, I can see how you'd conclude that God was a Trinity.

But I for one can't ignore these facts.

I can't and won't ignore the fact that it is the one who died for my sins who told me he could do nothing of himself, through his words in the Bible, and led me on this path to know him and his Father, and my Father, and his God, and my God.

It was men who didn't die for my sins, who don't keep Jesus' commandment that God is one He, who developed and taught the Trinity. It was men who were disobedient to the apostle's commandment to teach no other doctrine that ignored that commandment also and arrogantly took it upon themselves to teach things the apostles would have had no knowledge of...they are the ones who developed and taught the Trinity.

I've read and studied the book of Acts many times. The second chapter should tell you what you need to know. The Jews had put Jesus to death because they claimed he said and did things that made himself out to be equal to God. The apostles told them to repent of that idea, and believe instead that Jesus was "a man approved of God by mighty works that God did by him".

I choose to believe in the Jesus that apostles openly proclaimed, not the one invented by the imaginations of evil, disobedient, lying, men.

"13"Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. 14How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14

Edited
I can see where you could come to the conclusion o... (show quote)


I never considered Acts 2 in that way before... But you're absolutely correct... The apostles most certainly didn't believe that Christ was God....

Thanks... I love it when scripture comes to life like this...

Reply
Nov 19, 2019 09:08:46   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Go back to the book of Daniel.

Read Chapters 7, 8, and 9.



TommyRadd wrote:
I've read and studied the book of Acts many times. The second chapter should tell you what you need to know. The Jews had put Jesus to death because they claimed he said and did things that made himself out to be equal to God. The apostles told them to repent of that idea, and believe instead that Jesus was "a man approved of God by mighty works that God did by him".

Reply
Nov 19, 2019 09:13:40   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
All of Scripture is alive!

Ignoring any part of it is counter productive, because it is woven together in such a manner that it cannot be broken, not even by wishful thinking.

The Apostles didn't believe it until they did.



Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I never considered Acts 2 in that way before... But you're absolutely correct... The apostles most certainly didn't believe that Christ was God....

Thanks... I love it when scripture comes to life like this...

Reply
 
 
Nov 19, 2019 09:21:14   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
You speak truly. Whatever God has revealed, man can not separate by choosing to declare any part of it untrue. !



manning5 wrote:
Matthew 28:19 ESV / 108 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Reply
Nov 19, 2019 09:22:35   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Zemirah wrote:
Go back to the book of Daniel.

Read Chapters 7, 8, and 9.


Did.... And...?

Perhaps a hint

Reply
Nov 19, 2019 09:23:01   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Zemirah wrote:
All of Scripture is alive!

Ignoring any part of it is counter productive, because it is woven together in such a manner that it cannot be broken, not even by wishful thinking.

The Apostles didn't believe it until they did.


They should have wrote about it...

Reply
Nov 19, 2019 10:08:57   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
They did.

Millions of us have read their words and understand that they did.

Your refusal to see in no way negates that truth.



Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
They should have wrote about it...

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.