A question for trinitarians

Confusing propositional for normative again.

Remember: CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.....

I have refuted every point you have made. You have ignored everything I have shared and ignored my objections to everything you have shared in favor of repeating variations of your refuted theme.

Last Edited by Snow Falling on Cedars on 07/07/2014 06:21 PM

You haven't refuted anything, all you just do is talking about context and interpretation but offers no insight, agumentation or scriptural references of your own. How about you explain one verse, that's all I'm asking, one single verse. Let's go with Isaiah 45:5.

"Turn your steps toward these pathetic ruins. The enemy has destroyed everything in the holy temple. Your opponents have roared inside your meeting place. They have set up their own emblems as symbols. Starting from its entrance, they hacked away like a woodcutter in a forest. They smashed all its carved paneling with axes and hatchets. They burned your holy place to the ground. They dishonored the place where you live among us. They said to themselves, 'We will crush them.' They burned every meeting place of God in the land. We no longer see miraculous signs. There are no prophets anymore. No one knows how long this will last. How long, O God, will the enemy insult us? Will the enemy despise you forever? Why do you hold back your hand, especially your right hand? Take your hands out of your pockets. Destroy your enemies! And yet, from long ago God has been my king, the one who has been victorious throughout the earth. You stirred up the sea with your own strength. You smashed the heads of sea monsters in the water."



Last Edited by Snow Falling on Cedars on 07/07/2014 06:30 PM

I have explained the reason for every misinterpreted claim you have made. You are asking me to interpret verses arbitrarily, like Satan tempting Jesus in the desrt.

No you haven't. Do you want me to quote every single post you've posted to prove it? Isaiah 45:5. Go!

Don't you know what arbitrary means? Don't you even care enough to ask what I mean by my illustration if you don't understand?

You have intellectually isolated yourself in apostasy by refusing to believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father.

Please, PLEASE understand this. I wish I knew a better way to explain to you the danger of this folly, but you even called someone a dufus... and have refused to address my response to this or anything else you've said... please, please consider Matthew 5:22!

Last Edited by Snow Falling on Cedars on 07/07/2014 06:49 PM

Isiah 45:5

explanation analogy

I am human.
I have a heart
I have a head
I have a hand

I am still one human.
(Obviously, there are other humans but my point is that I have parts that make up myself, as does God).



Bible verse
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

He is the Lord, there is no one else (he is complete with all his parts).

I do. Let me use it in a sentence: "The verses vedklyvare posted contradicted the man-made doctrine held by Snow Falling on, therefore she arbitrarily refuted them as 'out of context'"

The doctrine contradicting vedklyvare's interpretation of Scripture is not man-made.

I'm not she.

That's not an explanation, that's an analogy, a fallacious one. It's also modalism, therefore a non-trinitarian heresy.

Actually he just used the body as a metaphor, and modalism claims that the Trinity is not distinct. Things are distinct. The body is made up of things. He is supporting trinitarianism, and he basically just explained the verse you wanted to understand.

Jesus is God in the flesh.

HALLELUJAH!

Let us rest while the OP looks over the material he has henceforth ignored.

Well, it looks like the OP asked a question not to gain understanding but to try and debunk the trinity belief.

OP failed at debunking and has tried to turn this around as there is no proof of the trinity.

2 plus 2 is 4

OP says 2 plus 2 is 5

we say to put 2 separate lines down on a paper, now put two other lines down and count the lines. Anyone who can count will come up with 4.

OP says, no it's 5 because he erased the middle of one of the lines so counted to 5.

Someone says, OP you can't do that to prove your point and OP says you still haven't proven anything.

OP started with a debunking agenda, which he failed instead of trying to gain understanding.

Pearls before swine, it seems.

Will pray for everyone in this thread.

Modalism the way I have seen it defined states that the three aspects cannot manifest at the same time. God came and acted like Christ, the holy ghost at pentecost was God acting as another role. His analogy actually is one of a trinitarian basis because heart head and hand exist at the same time. Its like the egg and water analogy I referenced earlier. Modalism actually denies coexistance which is what defines the Trinity as representing one God. Same as you have body soul and spirit existing in one outer shell.

First you declare me an apostate then you lie and bear false witness, then you finish up with treats of hell fire. Way to go, that's the Roman spirit. All we're missing is the stake and the firewood and it's a good old fashioned party.

Maybe you should consider Mark 12:29; Jesus quoting the shema. People have payed with their life for holding on to that commandment of Jesus. Me saying 'dufus' was obviously a half-jokingly reply to him using patronizing suppression techniques by calling me 'child' in the post prior; it's all about context as you said. And dufus was the mildest insult i could think of in the English language. And yes, I had a verse in the back of my mind, but it was James 1:26 and not Matthew 5:22. But I see you're more of a fire and brimstone kinda person. And still, calling someone dufus is better than your repulsive passive-aggressiveness. Here's some more food for thought: Jeremiah 17:10

I gained alot of understanding honestly and have enjoyed the thread. Was a good run of the apologetics of the matter. It is good faith to examine why you believe what you do and to put it under the looking glass for very close inspection. That builds faith and brings understanding. Too many shout beliefs around and never learn to take into consideration another person's shoes because most do have very good reasons they believe why they do.

Modalism is the idea of God as different manifestations. But yeah, that obviously wasn't modalism. don't know what I was thinking. All these heresies to keep track of.

If you felt convicted of being an apostate it was not directly from me.

The threats you infer as mine were simply from a verse I referred you to, and your words are essentially verbatim with the words warned against in the verse referred to.

This discussion has been open and I have shared a great deal of information you have chosen to ignore. The murder analogy is uncalled for. Do you think two wrongs make a right?

What exactly is a "fire and brimstone" kinda person?

And what is passive aggressive about my presence here exactly?

Thank you for the closing verse.

Everyone, read Jeremiah 17:10.

You are a self-proclaimed apostate the way you throw around accusations of heresy like it's a joke. You need to look in the mirror. Metaphorically speaking.



Last Edited by Snow Falling on Cedars on 07/07/2014 07:27 PM

Took me a long time first time I heard the term I looked it up to define it and thought wait, what thats the way I think, am I a heretic so I started digging and found the differences between it and the trinity that's why it has stuck in my mind all these years. In the end I guess we are all heretics to somebodies belief system.

It is simple friend,


I will use the common names & understanding of the trinity,
Although it is a static point in knowledge and evolves...





Father -

that what is beyond knowledge.


Christ -

Truth that what was given to man inside the world of the knowledge of good & evil .


Spirit Set Apart (Holy) -

Truth that was given to the Fathers servants outside the knowledge of good & evil .

The Holy Spirit isn't a system though and the Holy Spirit is part of the trinity. Systematizating God's Body through human effort is self destructive. Please check out the material I've shared here to this effect. It's really important for the Church as a whole to see this stuff.

No. My OP was with honest intent. I wanted to see if trinitarians claimed YHWH to be the Father and how they reconcile that with verses unambiguously stating the Oneness of YHWH. As you can see, I wasn't the one going of topic and I've steered towards topic on almost every page. I even linked to another thread where the trinity is thoroughly debunked. The only intellectually and spriritually honest poster in this thread have been ByFaithAlone.

Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish?

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

YHWH made the world through his visible image, Jesus Christ...

The Holy Spirit of YHWH was passed to us through Jesus Christ, so that we could live new lives in HIM, as we were created to.



Epilogue to Fear and Trembling:



Once when the prices of spices in Holland fell, the merchants had a few cargoes sunk in the sea in order to jack up the price. This was an excusable, perhaps even necessary, deception. Do we need something similar in the world of the spirit?

Are we so sure that we have achieved the highest, so that there is nothing left for us to do except piously to delude ourselves into thinking that we have not come that far, simply in order to have something to occupy our time?

Is this the kind of self-deception the present generation needs?

Should it be trained in a virtuosity along that line, or is it not, instead, adequately perfected in the art of deceiving itself?

Or, rather, does it not need an honest earnestness that fearlessly and incorruptibly points to the tasks, an honest earnestness that lovingly maintains the tasks, that does not disquiet people into wanting to attain the highest too hastily but keeps the tasks young and beautiful and lovely to look at, inviting to all and yet also difficult and inspiring to the noble-minded (for the noble nature is inspired only by the difficult)?

Whatever one generation learns from another, no generation learns the essentially human from a previous one. In this respect, each generation begins primitively, has no task other than what each previous generation had, nor does it advance further, insofar as the previous generation had, nor does it advance further, insofar as the previous generations did not betray the task and deceive themselves.

The essentially human is passion, in which one generation perfectly understands another and understands itself. For example, no generation has learned to love from another, no generation is able to begin at any other point than at the beginning, no later generation has a more abridged task than the previous one, and if someone desires to go further and not stop with loving as the previous generation did, this is foolish and idle talk.



But the highest passion in a person is faith, and here no generation begins at any other point than where the previous one did. Each generation begins all over again; the next generation advances no further than the previous one, that is, if that one was faithful to the task and did not leave it high and dry.

That it should be fatiguing is, of course, something that one generation cannot say, for the generation does indeed have the task and has nothing to do with the fact that the previous generation had the same task, unless this particular generation, or the individuals in it, presumptuously assume the place that belongs to the spirit who rules the world and who has the patience not to become weary. If the generation does that, it is wrong, and no wonder, then that all existence seems wrong to it, for there surely is no one who found existence more wrong than the tailor who, according to the fairy story, came to heaven while alive and contemplated the world from that vantage point.

As long as the generation is concerned only about its task, which is the highest, it cannot become weary, for the task is always adequate for a person's lifetime. When children on vacation have already played all the games before twelve o'clock and impatiently ask: Can't somebody think up a new game--does this show that these children are more developed and more advanced than the children in the contemporary or previous generation who make the well-known games last all day long? OR does it show instead that the first children lack what I would call the endearing earnestness belonging to play?



Faith is the highest passion in a person. There perhaps are many in every generation who do not come to faith, but no one goes further. Whether there also are many in our day who do not find it, I do not decide. I dare to refer only to myself, without concealing that he has a long way to go, without therefore wishing to deceive himself or what is great by making a trifle of it, a childhood disease one may wish to get over as soon as possible.

But life has tasks enough also for the person who does not come to faith, and if he loves these honestly, his life will not be wasted, even if it is never comparable to the lives of those who perceived and grasped the highest. But the person who has come to faith (whether he is extraordinarily gifted or plain and simple does not matter) does not come to a standstill in faith.

Indeed, he would be indignant if anyone said this to him, just as the lover would resent it if someone said that he came to a standstill in love; for, he would answer, I am by no means standing still. I have my whole life in it. Yet he does not go further, does not go on to something else, for when he finds this, then he has another explanation.

"One must go further, one must go further." This urge to go further is an old story in the world. Heraclitus the obscure, who deposited his thoughts in his books and his books in Diana's temple [He compares being to the stream of a river and says that you cannot go into the same river twice] (for his thoughts had been his armor in life, and therefore he hung it in the temple of the godddess), Heraclitus the obscure said: One cannot walk through the same river twice. Heraclitus the obscure had a disciple who did not remain standing there but went further--and added: One cannot do it even once. Poor Heraclitus, to have a disciple like that! By this improvement, the Heraclitean thesis was amended into an Elatic thesis that denies motion, and yet that disciple wished only to be a disciple of Heraclitus who went further, not back to what Heraclitus had abandoned."

Yes I understand you and I believe the same it was the best phrasing I could find to convey my point between the different beliefs. BTW I have looked at some of your links and your thread was magnificent I was thoroughly delighted by it. Im not through it yet but have bookmarked it to come back to so I can digest.You and your wifes testimony is one for the ages and is a perfect example of how He works in us.

Jesus and the Father are ONE. Jesus said that HIMSELF and you have yet to address this glaring conflict with your interpretation.

You have also ignored this, which I already shared but am more than happy to do so again, since I can't believe it hasn't already existed for thousands of years, but God's goodness is a surprisingly circumstantial thing!

[link to levishand.wordpress.com]

"He who denies the Trinity will lose his soul
and he who tries to understand the Trinity fully will lose his mind."

I have found this last quote to be ESPECIALLY true in my personal experience!