How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[Soapy]

You just don't seem to get that your assumptions aren't always or necessarily true. You just don't seem to get that this isn't a mathematical proof, nor an ontological statement. This is a theological proposition. It has a Biblical basis -- like all other theological propositions. You're still misquoting and misrepresenting the doctrine to "show" that it's "invalid."

All your bluster and faux-"logic" cannot make this go away as a legitimate theological statement.

As others have also seen, you don’t actually present any valid argument. Your presentations are just refutations of the truth that is presented to you.

Do you have any credible opinions on your ‘[Trinity] Doctrine’ and where in Scriptures you see the proof and validly of such a doctrine.

Indeed, even up to now, we do not know what exactly is this ‘Doctrine of the Trinity’ that you refer to.. not that we are actually interested in sullying our minds with fallacy to justify it in your eye!

My feeling is that you know enough NOT TO PRESENT your doctrine because you know it would be ripped to shreds by the reality and truth of Scriptures...

Prove your case:

1. Line by line doctrine - followed by...
2. Scripture chapter and verse - and...
3. Explanation linking the two - plus...
4. Overview point and purpose fitting the doctrine e.g.:
   1. That Jesus is made to be ‘Lord’ by God but he is, by trinity, already God.
      
   2. And that ‘God is Essence’ but did ‘Essence’ make the Father to be ranked first among total equals of an eternal Godhead?)

 

[sojourner]

As others have also seen, you don’t actually present any valid argument. Your presentations are just refutations of the truth that is presented to you.

No truth has been presented -- only misinterpretations and misinformation. And it's that misinterpretation and misinformation put forward as "truth" that I have a problem with.

Do you have any credible opinions on your ‘[Trinity] Doctrine’ and where in Scriptures you see the proof and validly of such a doctrine.

Asked and answered.

Indeed, even up to now, we do not know what exactly is this ‘Doctrine of the Trinity’ that you refer to.. not that we are actually interested in sullying our minds with fallacy to justify it in your eye!

You admit that you don't know what it is, yet you claim that you are so adamantly against it. What could be the cause of such umbrage? It can't be the doctrine, itself, for you admit that you don't even know what it is, and you're not interested in knowing. It must be something else, and your disgust with the doctrine is only a "whipping boy" for the real reason. That seems disingenuous, and it's that disingenuousness that's really at issue here -- not "Biblical support," or "proof," or "mathematical logic" of the doctrine, itself. What is it, I wonder, that you find so distasteful? What is that you're really so against? When you can come clean and shed some light on your issues, then we might have a real discussion on our hands. Until that happens, you're just staging something akin to Jerry Springer in order to entertain yourself and assuage some underlying ... something that's like a burr under your saddle.

My feeling is that you know enough NOT TO PRESENT your doctrine because you know it would be ripped to shreds by the reality and truth of Scriptures...

See above.

Prove your case:

No proof necessary. You admit that you 1) don't know and 2) don't care. The doctrine stands on its own merits -- just as it always has, and the subterfuge you're presenting here is but an unimportant, juvenile tantrum that cannot affect the doctrine's legitimacy.

 

[YoursTrue]

You just don't seem to get that your assumptions aren't always or necessarily true. You just don't seem to get that this isn't a mathematical proof, nor an ontological statement. This is a theological proposition. It has a Biblical basis -- like all other theological propositions. You're still misquoting and misrepresenting the doctrine to "show" that it's "invalid."

All your bluster and faux-"logic" cannot make this go away as a legitimate theological statement.

We all have different viewpoint or lenses from which to see things. Therefore, to make a slight joke, some viewpoints are clearer than others. That's how I see it. For example -- as far as viewpoints and opinions go -- the Athanasian creed -- the first creed perhaps to have been codified about the trinity, explicitly states that eternal damnation is contingent upon those not believing the trinity. Has that viewpoint changed? I'm not speaking philosophically, but if you believe any of it at all, do you personally (not "ontologically") believe that if one is to avoid "eternal damnation," one must believe in the trinity?
(Please try not to use bluster in your response, thank you.)

 

[YoursTrue]

As others have also seen, you don’t actually present any valid argument. Your presentations are just refutations of the truth that is presented to you.

Do you have any credible opinions on your ‘[Trinity] Doctrine’ and where in Scriptures you see the proof and validly of such a doctrine.

Indeed, even up to now, we do not know what exactly is this ‘Doctrine of the Trinity’ that you refer to.. not that we are actually interested in sullying our minds with fallacy to justify it in your eye!

My feeling is that you know enough NOT TO PRESENT your doctrine because you know it would be ripped to shreds by the reality and truth of Scriptures...

Prove your case:

1. Line by line doctrine - followed by...
2. Scripture chapter and verse - and...
3. Explanation linking the two - plus...
4. Overview point and purpose fitting the doctrine e.g.:
   1. That Jesus is made to be ‘Lord’ by God but he is, by trinity, already God.
      
   2. And that ‘God is Essence’ but did ‘Essence’ make the Father to be ranked first among total equals of an eternal Godhead?)

I really do hope sojourner can detail answers to your questions without bluster. After all, he says he went to seminary -- so -- hopefully he will be able to answer your questions (and my questions).

 

[sojourner]

Therefore, to make a slight joke, some viewpoints are clearer than others.

Yes, but that's apparently not the case here. You all admittedly don't know what the doctrine is, or what it says. How can your viewpoint on the matter be any less clear?

the Athanasian creed -- the first creed perhaps to have been codified about the trinity,

The Apostles' is the oldest.

I'm not speaking philosophically, but if you believe any of it at all, do you personally (not "ontologically") believe that if one is to avoid "eternal damnation," one must believe in the trinity?

I don't personally believe in damnation. And I've adequately explained why a rigid adherence to orthodox teaching was vitally important in those particular circumstances.

 

[sojourner]

I really do hope sojourner can detail answers to your questions without bluster. After all, he says he went to seminary -- so -- hopefully he will be able to answer your questions (and my questions).

The questions are disingenuous. I'm not playing that game. If questions are honestly posed, and it appears as though there's sincerity in learning the theological thought involved, I'm happy to answer. But I'm not playing juvenile games.

 

[Soapy]

No truth has been presented -- only misinterpretations and misinformation. And it's that misinterpretation and misinformation put forward as "truth" that I have a problem with.


Asked and answered.


You admit that you don't know what it is, yet you claim that you are so adamantly against it. What could be the cause of such umbrage? It can't be the doctrine, itself, for you admit that you don't even know what it is, and you're not interested in knowing. It must be something else, and your disgust with the doctrine is only a "whipping boy" for the real reason. That seems disingenuous, and it's that disingenuousness that's really at issue here -- not "Biblical support," or "proof," or "mathematical logic" of the doctrine, itself. What is it, I wonder, that you find so distasteful? What is that you're really so against? When you can come clean and shed some light on your issues, then we might have a real discussion on our hands. Until that happens, you're just staging something akin to Jerry Springer in order to entertain yourself and assuage some underlying ... something that's like a burr under your saddle.


See above.


No proof necessary. You admit that you 1) don't know and 2) don't care. The doctrine stands on its own merits -- just as it always has, and the subterfuge you're presenting here is but an unimportant, juvenile tantrum that cannot affect the doctrine's legitimacy.

I see you still refuse to present your ‘doctrine’!

All you do is refute whatever is said to you saying, ‘read the doctrine’... but you yourself do not say what that doctrine is?

So why don’t you present your doctrine?

You fell on your face in one instance saying that ‘Lord’ is interchangeable with ‘God’! Wow, I kinda felt for you in your realisation how silly that was!!!

And that ‘God is essence in which the three share’, yet you cannot say what ‘essence’ is!.. Moreover, if God is essence and the three share it or share in it then the three must be like goldfish in a bowl sharing the same water...

Sounds silly? It sure does!! But it is trinity doctrine.

What about the part of the doctrine that claims all three are all co-equal YET are RANKED Father first!!?? How can there be a rank order in a co-equal cooperative?

And co-powerful... and co... well ... everything but yet the Son is GIVEN all his needs BY the Father... AND the Holy Spirit TAKES from what is the Son’s... Moreover, if the three are co-equal co-everything... WHAT NEED IS THERE FOR THREE when ONE can do EVERYTHING??

And finally, is it not a DEMOTION for the son to take the seat on the earthly throne of David if the throne is a REWARD for the son carrying out the greatest and most monumental task in the history of human life? Oh, and he is GOD ALMIGHTY (oops, ESSENCE ALMIGHTY!!)??

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but that's apparently not the case here. You all admittedly don't know what the doctrine is, or what it says. How can your viewpoint on the matter be any less clear?

The Apostles' is the oldest.


I don't personally believe in damnation. And I've adequately explained why a rigid adherence to orthodox teaching was vitally important in those particular circumstances.

I finally looked up the apostles Creed, couldnt exactly find when it was first published, but I do have a few questions. You're saying it was before the Athanasian Creed?

 

[sojourner]

I see you still refuse to present your ‘doctrine’!

I see you still refuse to research it.

All you do is refute whatever is said to you saying, ‘read the doctrine’... but you yourself do not say what that doctrine is?

Well... why do you refuse to read it?

So why don’t you present your doctrine?

1) It's not "my" doctrine. 2) So why don't you read it for yourself? Everyone else here seems capable of doing their own work in research. Shall I hold your hand while you go pee-pee too?

You fell on your face in one instance saying that ‘Lord’ is interchangeable with ‘God’! Wow, I kinda felt for you in your realisation how silly that was!!!

I stand by it.

And that ‘God is essence in which the three share’, yet you cannot say what ‘essence’ is!

Who can? We can't know everything about God. Best I can do is to say that that essence is "divinity."

Moreover, if God is essence and the three share it or share in it then the three must be like goldfish in a bowl sharing the same water...

Sounds silly? It sure does!! But it is trinity doctrine.

A great example of misinformation being claimed as fact. That is not the doctrine.

What about the part of the doctrine that claims all three are all co-equal YET are RANKED Father first!!??

What of it? Have you never heard the term "first among equals?"

And co-powerful... and co... well ... everything but yet the Son is GIVEN all his needs BY the Father... AND the Holy Spirit TAKES from what is the Son’s... Moreover, if the three are co-equal co-everything... WHAT NEED IS THERE FOR THREE when ONE can do EVERYTHING??

One cannot love. Love is relationship.

And finally, is it not a DEMOTION for the son to take the seat on the earthly throne of David if the throne is a REWARD for the son carrying out the greatest and most monumental task in the history of human life?

No. Why would you think so?

 

[YoursTrue]

...
A great example of misinformation being claimed as fact. That is not the doctrine.


What of it? Have you never heard the term "first among equals?"

Hmm in good conscience, there is no such thing even among identical triplets, as equals. They may look alike, but there are differences. In the case of twins like Esau and Jacob, Esau came out first. They were not equals. Humans, but not equal humans. One may pretend or push the idea of equality but it just isn't so even in the divine sense.

 

[sojourner]

Hmm in good conscience, there is no such thing even among identical triplets, as equals. They may look alike, but there are differences. In the case of twins like Esau and Jacob, Esau came out first. They were not equals. Humans, but not equal humans. One may pretend or push the idea of equality but it just isn't so even in the divine sense.

I disagree. In fact, even though Esau was the elder son and stood to benefit from primogeniture, Jacob ended up receiving the blessing of inheritance. In the Episcopal Church, there is a “presiding Bishop.” That person enjoys a primacy of honor, but not of power. S/he is first among equals. In fact, in General Convention, there are two houses that vote: a House of Bishops and a House of Commons, comprised of a mixture of clergy and lay. One house cannot overpower the other. We find this sort of organic equality everywhere. In many churches, there is a “hierarchy of equality” in ministry, in which power is distributed equally between pastor, administrator, and team organizer. No, I’m afraid I disagree with your assessment.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree. In fact, even though Esau was the elder son and stood to benefit from primogeniture, Jacob ended up receiving the blessing of inheritance.

That is correct. (They were not equals.) You are free to disagree but facts are facts. Further, the fact they were from the same parents and were twins in no way makes them equals. I may get into this later. Esau, being the elder twin, sold his birthright. And there was of course some finagling going on when Isaac was dying. Nope, not equals.

In the Episcopal Church, there is a “presiding Bishop.” That person enjoys a primacy of honor, but not of power. S/he is first among equals. In fact, in General Convention, there are two houses that vote: a House of Bishops and a House of Commons, comprised of a mixture of clergy and lay. One house cannot overpower the other. We find this sort of organic equality everywhere. In many churches, there is a “hierarchy of equality” in ministry, in which power is distributed equally between pastor, administrator, and team organizer. No, I’m afraid I disagree with your assessment.

That's ok. It doesn't matter insofar as God, reality (truth) and the Bible are concerned.

 

[Soapy]

That is correct. (They were not equals.) You are free to disagree but facts are facts. Further, the fact they were from the same parents and were twins in no way makes them equals. I may get into this later. Esau, being the elder twin, sold his birthright. And there was of course some finagling going on when Isaac was dying. Nope, not equals.

That's ok. It doesn't matter insofar as God, reality (truth) and the Bible are concerned.

It’s typical of Trinitarians to redefine words that cause then difficulty.

Sojourner is here clearly redefining the word ‘Equal’.

Esau was a Hunter. Was a Jacob an equal Hunter?
Isaacs mother helped him to ‘get hairy’ LIKE his brother... he was NOT his brother hence the word ‘like’. Trinity says the same in saying: ‘Jesus is LIKE GOD’. Clearly, being ‘LIKE’ (equal to in LIKENESS) does not in any sense make the first the second (does not MAKE Jesus God!!). A plastic ‘Apple’ is only LIKE an Apple - it IS NOT an Apple, though!

Sojourner is desperate in this regard just as he is in his responses in his posts to me. Still, he doesn’t realise he is exposing the fallacies of trinitarianism even as he seeks to defend the fallacies of trinitarianism. Still (again) Trinity cannot be destroyed until Jesus Christ returns so he will provide disingenuous responses that frustrate our clearly and righteously set out statements on the truth... what we need to do is keep maintaining the pressure without swaying into desperation ourselves (that is, anxious to be seen to beat him! He’s driven by demonic forces greater than we think - and the same that he knows!!)

Great posts from you, by the way... and well defended responses!

 

[Soapy]

Hmm in good conscience, there is no such thing even among identical triplets, as equals.

sojourner claims this as ‘first among equals’... but in truth, he doesn’t know what it means nor that it is hogwash.

They may look alike, but there are differences. In the case of twins like Esau and Jacob, Esau came out first. They were not equals. Humans, but not equal humans. One may pretend or push the idea of equality but it just isn't so

I would bet (.if were a betting man) that sojourner cannot name how:

• The Holy Spirit is equal to Jesus...
  
• The Father is equal to the Son...
• The Son gives to the Father
• The Holy Spirit takes of what is [Jesus’]

if they are equal then what does Jesus have that the Holy Spirit doesn’t - but yet are equal IN ALL WAYS AND MANNER?

The Angels belong to the Father... [Even??] Satan knows this and in the temptation alludes to the father (God) sending his angels to save Jesus... shouldn’t those same angels belong to Jesus if he too is GOD?

But please remember that sojourner defines ‘God’ as ‘Essence’ (but lately calls it ‘DIVINITY’... and admits after that that he DOESNT KNOW HOW TO DEFINE ‘ESSENCE’ ... ipso facto: he doesn’t know how to define ‘GOD’.
If we use his definition then the three DEITIES are DIVINE. And this actually makes them INDEPENDENT ENTITIES or “GODS”...

tut tut tut... Trinity destroying itself (but in conceitedly, only because sojourner fouls up... other trinity believers are more cautious and wouldn’t expose the fallacy so greatly... Besides, bringing down one flimsy pillar of trinity fallacy in one isolated forum doesn’t change the massive towering pillars built up in, say, the Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Christadelphian, Oneness, Methodist, JW, Mormon, ... and every ‘Jesus is God’ ideology believing ‘Church’.

(p.s. you know that ‘Church’ refers, spiritually, to ‘Congregation of like-believing people’ and not to a physical building.. yes?)

 

[YoursTrue]

sojourner claims this as ‘first among equals’... but in truth, he doesn’t know what it means nor that it is hogwash. I would bet (.if were a betting man) that sojourner cannot name how:

• The Holy Spirit is equal to Jesus...
  
• The Father is equal to the Son...
• The Son gives to the Father
• The Holy Spirit takes of what is [Jesus’]

if they are equal then what does Jesus have that the Holy Spirit doesn’t - but yet are equal IN ALL WAYS AND MANNER?

The Angels belong to the Father... [Even??] Satan knows this and in the temptation alludes to the father (God) sending his angels to save Jesus... shouldn’t those same angels belong to Jesus if he too is GOD?

But please remember that sojourner defines ‘God’ as ‘Essence’ (but lately calls it ‘DIVINITY’... and admits after that that he DOESNT KNOW HOW TO DEFINE ‘ESSENCE’ ... ipso facto: he doesn’t know how to define ‘GOD’.
If we use his definition then the three DEITIES are DIVINE. And this actually makes them INDEPENDENT ENTITIES or “GODS”...

tut tut tut... Trinity destroying itself (but in conceitedly, only because sojourner fouls up... other trinity believers are more cautious and wouldn’t expose the fallacy so greatly... Besides, bringing down one flimsy pillar of trinity fallacy in one isolated forum doesn’t change the massive towering pillars built up in, say, the Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Christadelphian, Oneness, Methodist, JW, Mormon, ... and every ‘Jesus is God’ ideology believing ‘Church’.

(p.s. you know that ‘Church’ refers, spiritually, to ‘Congregation of like-believing people’ and not to a physical building.. yes?)

Yes. I am not sure if sojourner feels that way, too. I go back to the magic practicing priests of pharaoh's time when contending with Moses. The priests emulated Moses miracles. I think you are mixing up that Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God. Later perhaps for that. I agree that equal is a very divisive word, often misunderstood. Esau and Jacob, although humans and twins, were not "equals." Thanks for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

It’s typical of Trinitarians to redefine words that cause then difficulty.

Sojourner is here clearly redefining the word ‘Equal’.

Esau was a Hunter. Was a Jacob an equal Hunter?
Isaacs mother helped him to ‘get hairy’ LIKE his brother... he was NOT his brother hence the word ‘like’. Trinity says the same in saying: ‘Jesus is LIKE GOD’. Clearly, being ‘LIKE’ (equal to in LIKENESS) does not in any sense make the first the second (does not MAKE Jesus God!!). A plastic ‘Apple’ is only LIKE an Apple - it IS NOT an Apple, though!

Sojourner is desperate in this regard just as he is in his responses in his posts to me. Still, he doesn’t realise he is exposing the fallacies of trinitarianism even as he seeks to defend the fallacies of trinitarianism. Still (again) Trinity cannot be destroyed until Jesus Christ returns so he will provide disingenuous responses that frustrate our clearly and righteously set out statements on the truth... what we need to do is keep maintaining the pressure without swaying into desperation ourselves (that is, anxious to be seen to beat him! He’s driven by demonic forces greater than we think - and the same that he knows!!)

Great posts from you, by the way... and well defended responses!

In sojourner's defense, he has been taught by seminarians, so the teaching may be convincing. For some.

 

[YoursTrue]

sojourner claims this as ‘first among equals’... but in truth, he doesn’t know what it means nor that it is hogwash. I would bet (.if were a betting man) that sojourner cannot name how:

• The Holy Spirit is equal to Jesus...
  
• The Father is equal to the Son...
• The Son gives to the Father
• The Holy Spirit takes of what is [Jesus’]

if they are equal then what does Jesus have that the Holy Spirit doesn’t - but yet are equal IN ALL WAYS AND MANNER?

Good question.

 

[Soapy]

Yes. I am not sure if sojourner feels that way, too. I go back to the magic practicing priests of pharaoh's time when contending with Moses. The priests emulated Moses miracles. I think you are mixing up that Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God. Later perhaps for that. I agree that equal is a very divisive word, often misunderstood. Esau and Jacob, although humans and twins, were not "equals." Thanks for that.

JW... I included them because they believe that Jesus was ‘pre-existent’ as an Angel... and trinity defines pre-existence as ‘God’ (Having no beginning!’.

I don’t hold to JW doctrine and fine their philosophy stressful, demanding, and invasive in personal life.

 

[Soapy]

In sojourner's defense, he has been taught by seminarians, so the teaching may be convincing. For some.

I wouldn’t offer a defence for him. He’s adult enough to understand when whatever he has been taught is not cogent. In fact, more so because he goes the extra mile to profess falsities and then claim it is his antagoniser who is wrong and doesn’t understand the illusion that he creates.

For obvious instance, he says that ‘Lord’ is a substitute for ‘God’... hold on.. did he ever use the word ‘Substitute’?? Do you see what I’m talking about... PEDANTRY... An honest person would accept ‘Substitute’ for ‘Interchangeable’ but sojourner would play on pedantry to claim he didn’t say that ‘Lord’ was a SUBSTITUTE for ‘God’... he only said ‘Lord’ was INTERCHANGEABLE with ‘God’... and you know this is just to draw the controversy and his wrongness away from the highlight of being wrong, misinformed, in ignorance, arrogance, or just plain disingenuousness!

Deliberate and purposeful misdirection is not worthy of a defence of ignorance and was-subjected-to-false-teaching. You may feel SYMPATHETIC ... but offering a defence... nah!!

 

[YoursTrue]

JW... I included them because they believe that Jesus was ‘pre-existent’ as an Angel... and trinity defines pre-existence as ‘God’ (Having no beginning!’.

I don’t hold to JW doctrine and fine their philosophy stressful, demanding, and invasive in personal life.

What do you believe about Jesus then? Was he in heaven with God before he came to earth? How do you view it?