How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[YoursTrue]

I believe it sounds like just punishment to me for those who wish to do evil all the ime.

So you consider drowning just punishment for those who want to do evil all the time.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not what I asked you. I asked you if you have never heard anyone speak of Deity as "God" and as "Lord." But instead of "speaking truth," your post simply practices a dishonest avoidance of the question, which leads to my reaction you note below.

When you are in pain the way you are now it is typical to shut your eyes to try to wince away the effects. Try opening your eyes to truth and the discomfort will drain away!!
Another disingenuous response, which is why I'm overcome with laughter. Your posts can't even be honest about being honest. And then they accuse me of dishonesty.

Soapy's responses sound honest enough to me, as opposed to someone who can't explain the "Trinity doctrine," yet rests his belief on that rather than the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course I haha s never heard that “God” and “Lord” is used interchangeably... if it was true then we would all know it - but what is the point? Anyone can be “Lord” ... it simply means a master (plus all that I said previously). “Lord” is WITHIN the context and definition Orion of “God”... But “GOD” is not in the context and definition of “Lord”.,, or else, prove it, if you insist?

Only if we bring the term “God” down to humanity level do we acknowledge what you claim.. but that’s not the case we are speaking of here. The case is of the one true Spirit God of the Jews and Israelites and true christians whose name is ‘Yhwh’... and contrast with the so-called ‘GODs’ of pagan belief.

I see you don’t give a definition for “God” nor answer to what ‘Lord God’, means, though!!

Now that you mention it, I wonder what his definition is of "God." Or what "Lord God" means. But then why should someone like that answer? It reflects on "humaity" in general. Sad state of affairs.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never answer with disingenuousness... I have no requirement to answer in such or any such manner as the truth is what I speak and write.

The verse(s) I present to you are clear and precise and anyone reading the scriptures knows these verses.

Only someone trying not to answer the question would resort to claiming they don’t know which verse is being put to them.

Moreover, if you felt there were more than one such verse that were not in context with what the line of discussion was about then you should have asked which verse, of those you claim, is the one in question.

Point if order: Jesus, when quoting from the scriptures, did not name chapter and verse from the Torah ... the Jews, being scholars of scriptures (OT) would have no problem concerning where, what, not why the verse was being quoted...

This is testament against you that you are either being disingenuous that you don’t know the verse in context, or you are really not knowledgeable in scriptures and use your ignorance or claims of multiple verses to cover your non-answer!

I believe some use their "intellectual training" to subterfuge others and likely themselves at the same time.

 

[sojourner]

Soapy's responses sound honest enough to me

Of course they do.

as opposed to someone who can't explain the "Trinity doctrine,"

...As opposed to someone who rails against the doctrine of the Trinity, yet doesn't even know what it says, and won't be bothered to read it for themselves...

 

[Soapy]

Of course they do.

This answer is expected to be countered...

But I don’t need praise from an untruth speaker against the one true God, and his Christ.

In realty, sojourner is sticking to speaking about the false doctrine of the trinity while we are speaking about the true doctrine of scriptures.

Why he claims we are wrong is because he speaks of the doctrine of the trinity... no, I’m not repeating myself... I’m emphasising that this is the problem that we have here!

Think of this: An event occurs and is written about in a book called a ‘Bible’.

Then another person (Tom) writes a thesis based on their own belief concerning the ‘Bible’.

Years later, Simon starts telling the story about the ‘Bible’ based on Tom’s thesis ... while Jody tells it from the point of view of the ‘Bible’.

Simon and Jody clash as to differences in the ‘Bible’ and the thesis. Simin says Jody isn’t sticking to Tom’s thesis - Jody says he is only going to reference the original ‘Bible’ because he sees that Tom’s thesis is not true to the ‘Bible’ event.

Who is correct?

Well, Simon is RIGHT about what Tom’s thesis says... BUT WRONG about what the ‘Bible’ says.

Jody is justified in not accepting Simon’s ideas about Tom’s thesis on the basis that Tom’s thesis is not a true rendition of what the original true events says.

Jody is also right not to refer to the thesis because he doesn’t want to ‘NORMALIZE’ the false thesis written by Tom and perpetrated by Simon.

Simon loves the idea of the thesis because many other people also loves it... it’s far more glitzy and dramatic than the truth...

Many movies and dramas work like Tom’s thesis on the events of, say, ‘Lord of the Rings’. Tolkien did not present many women in his book of that title but Peter Jackson modified many scenes to include females because if presented more sexy(er) scenes like an affair between a Male Dwarf and an Female Elf (like that would happen in a Tolkien middle-earth world... huh!!)

In answering to sojourner we need to be careful that we acknowledge that everything he says that refers to The Doctrine of the Trinity, is true... but that what the Doctrine of the trinity says concerning the Bible Scriptures, IS NOT TRUE IN MANY PARTS... therefore a Falsity and Truth can only result in a FALSITY... it’s simple common sense logic!

But please don’t get into the habit of denying everything about the “doctrine” because SOME PARTS are true - — Only deny the parts that are NOT TRUE.

Remind sojourner that the doctrine of the trinity is not on trial here... what is on trial is the ‘Bible’ Scriptures... not the ‘thesis’ of the Trinity.


...As opposed to someone who rails against the doctrine of the Trinity, yet doesn't even know what it says, and won't be bothered to read it for themselves...[/QUOTE]

 

[sojourner]

In realty, sojourner is sticking to speaking about the false doctrine of the trinity while we are speaking about the true doctrine of scriptures.

you haven't proven it to be "false." Therefore, your statement is untrue.

Why he claims we are wrong is because he speaks of the doctrine of the trinity... no, I’m not repeating myself... I’m emphasising that this is the problem that we have here!

I'm not saying that you're wrong in your belief -- only that you're wrong where your specific refutations of the doctrine are concerned, because those refutations argue against what is not true of the doctrine.

Think of this: An event occurs and is written about in a book called a ‘Bible’.

Then another person (Tom) writes a thesis based on their own belief concerning the ‘Bible’.

Years later, Simon starts telling the story about the ‘Bible’ based on Tom’s thesis ... while Jody tells it from the point of view of the ‘Bible’.

Simon and Jody clash as to differences in the ‘Bible’ and the thesis. Simin says Jody isn’t sticking to Tom’s thesis - Jody says he is only going to reference the original ‘Bible’ because he sees that Tom’s thesis is not true to the ‘Bible’ event.

Who is correct?

Yeah, but that's not How It Works. Jody may think Jody is telling it "from the viewpoint of the Bible," but, in fact, Jody is not. since the Biblical texts are multivalent, Jody must do Jody's due diligence in exegeting the texts in order to produce a legitimate interpretation. Jody has not done that. Jody is stating opinion, just as Tom is.

In answering to sojourner we need to be careful that we acknowledge that everything he says that refers to The Doctrine of the Trinity, is true... but that what the Doctrine of the trinity says concerning the Bible Scriptures, IS NOT TRUE IN MANY PARTS

It's only not true according to the Bible, if you can prove it. Thus far, you haven't done that. All you've done is set up some false statements.

Remind sojourner that the doctrine of the trinity is not on trial here... what is on trial is the ‘Bible’ Scriptures... not the ‘thesis’ of the Trinity.

What's on trial is statements that you have made about the doctrine that are not true, and your poorly-formulated interpretations of Biblical texts.

...As opposed to someone who rails against the doctrine of the Trinity, yet doesn't even know what it says, and won't be bothered to read it for themselves...

And that's true; you haven't read it and you don't know what it says.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course they do.


...As opposed to someone who rails against the doctrine of the Trinity, yet doesn't even know what it says, and won't be bothered to read it for themselves...

I have read it many times, we are talking also about explaining it, which you have not done, it doesn't make sense and is not biblically sound.

 

[YoursTrue]

This answer is expected to be countered...

But I don’t need praise from an untruth speaker against the one true God, and his Christ.

In realty, sojourner is sticking to speaking about the false doctrine of the trinity while we are speaking about the true doctrine of scriptures.

Why he claims we are wrong is because he speaks of the doctrine of the trinity... no, I’m not repeating myself... I’m emphasising that this is the problem that we have here!

That is what I have found; rather than EXPLAIN the trinity 'doctrine,' those would just keep talking about it as if it were true and rest their faith on that. And then, of course, manage to put a few insults in here and there to make sure they're right (without explanations of the "doctrine." How sad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly. You and I would have been burned at the stake 500 years ago.

And these zealots would have supported it, or if they didn't, they'd pay a price.

 

[YoursTrue]

"God" and "Lord" have long been used interchangeably. The Elohist used language we translate as "God." The yahwist used language we translate as "Lord." Paul would have gotten that.

Not answering the question. How does one Lord and one God mean that there are three persons of one God?

 

[Soapy]

Not answering the question. How does one Lord and one God mean that there are three persons of one God?

Is the third person (Holy Spirit) ‘Lord’? Ask sojourner to show where in the scriptures this is written.

Certainly, in his ‘Doctrine’, it is his view that it is but he cannot even show it... he just says that we should read it... challenge him to present his evidence?

He falsely claims ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable so he can say, for instance, where it says in scriptures: ‘God made [Jesus] to be both Lord and Christ:

• “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

sojourner can say, ‘Oh, see, Lord made Jesus to be God and Christ’

But what sense is that because someone cannot be MADE to be God (YHWH) at the same time as claiming (rightly so) that ‘YHWH God is eternal’.
For sure then, Jesus being made ‘God’ cannot be the ETERNAL GOD and must be, ipso facto, another God!!!

So, NO!! ‘Lord’ and ‘Gods are NOT interchangeable because ANYONE of worthy note CAN BE MADE ‘Lord’ but NO ONE can be MADE ‘[YHWH] God’.

p.s. just to cover... Of sojourner claims that ‘YHWH GOD’ is the SAME GOD but just called ‘Jesus GOD’... I’m guessing... because there’s only one ‘GOD’. But you will observe that this is an obviously crude, strained and non-credible reasoning inconsistent with any Scripture view (But remember that he’ll say he’s not talking Scriptures but the doctrine which WE are NOT talking about!!)

 

[Soapy]

you haven't proven it to be "false." Therefore, your statement is untrue.

What? ‘Not proven true’ means ‘Untrue’... wow, now that’s saying something wildly crazy!

Hmmm... A report was made that Russian Cosmonauts have found pumpkins growing on planet Mars - According to Sojourner this means my claim that it’s false IS UNTRUE because I can’t prove it...
Given the evidence concerning space travel and space exploration it is reasonable and factual that the report is false seeing that no human has even travelled to planet Mars let alone cultivated Earth plants on it.

So also, no evidence is shown that there was ever any trinity expressed in the scriptures FROM WHICH the doctrine of the trinity was falsely derived in its basicality (I.e. errors of interpretations and desires to prostelize pagan nations who believe in three-Gods rulership)

Sojourner, from what source was the doctrine of trinity derived?

And that's true; you haven't read it and you don't know what it says.

Umm... I can call you disingenuous seeing you know nothing about my knowledge on this matter... I do not uphold anything in the trinity doctrine that claims there are three persons who are the one God and that the son was from the Father ‘Very God from very God’... thats a ridiculous claim seeing that God is Spirit and Spirit does not PROCREATE!!!

Spirit only CREATES .. so if the son came from the Father then that is a CREATION and a creation is not ETERNAL (Past!)

 

[sojourner]

I have read it many times, we are talking also about explaining it, which you have not done, it doesn't make sense and is not biblically sound.

If so, then why do you continue to misrepresent what it says? Do you not have any real arguments against it, so must make stuff up?

 

[Soapy]

If so, then why do you continue to misrepresent what it says? Do you not have any real arguments against it, so must make stuff up?

Sojourner, I have told them to believe what you say concerning ‘WHAT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE SAYS’... In this regard you are right...

However, since the doctrine of the trinity is FANTASY, the ‘truth’ ensconced within concerning what it believes IS FALSE in regard to the TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES from which the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY was falsely derived...

Since your doctrine was COMPILED from the Scriptures, you cannot argue that the trinity doctrine is ABSOLUTE (or even close) truth OVER that from which it was falsely derived.

My anecdote concerning ‘Bible’, ‘Tom’s Thesis’ and the arguments that came out of it is enough to show what I’m saying - you see it because it is undeniable yet still deride it. The ‘Bible’ was the ORIGINAL script... Tom took FROM IT but decided to add fantastical additions and changes to make it more mindfully delightful to readers (as movie and dramas about real life events almost absolutely do... they even tell you so: and it’s evident to those who, perhaps were even involved or witnesses the ‘Bible’ event: ‘That didn’t happen’, ‘Hey, he didn’t say that...!’, ‘She wasn’t that pretty otherwise other men would have tried for her... how come she was ignored by everyone for so long?’

 

[sojourner]

Not answering the question. How does one Lord and one God mean that there are three persons of one God?

It doesn’t. But the title does imply deific status. It’s significant that the term is used for all three Persons.

 

[sojourner]

Is the third person (Holy Spirit) ‘Lord’? Ask sojourner to show where in the scriptures this is written

2 Cor.

 

[Soapy]

It doesn’t. But the title does imply deific status. It’s significant that the term is used for all three Persons.

Please show your evidence of the term being used to imply deific status for all three persons in scriptures (since the Doctrine you speak of is derived from scriptures, your evidence of deific status must come from the same and not some doctrinal committee addition!)

Since you insist on evidence then we do the same to you. Failure to present evidence that is creditworthy and valid scriptures (Bible chapter and verse) will confer on you full status as disingenuous poster seeing you have been posting for a long time now without presenting any evidence but accusing others of being such disingenuousness posters ourselves.

 

[sojourner]

What? ‘Not proven true’ means ‘Untrue’... wow, now that’s saying something wildly crazy!

Yeah, that’s not what I said though. You have this habit of twisting things that are said and then calling them wrong. I think you need to revisit the definition and scope of the Straw Man Fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

However, since the doctrine of the trinity is FANTASY, the ‘truth’ ensconced within concerning what it believes IS FALSE in regard to the TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES from which the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY was falsely derived...

1) You have yet to prove that the doctrine is demonstrably false.
2) The texts are not “a doctrine.” This shows that you don’t even understsnd the nature of the Bible.

My anecdote concerning ‘Bible’, ‘Tom’s Thesis’ and the arguments that came out of it is enough to show what I’m saying - you see it because it is undeniable yet still deride it

Because it’s not cogent to the actual circumstance.