How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[Soapy]

And YOU are not a "child", and have no "mother" , and have no "father",
is this correct ???

Ha ha ha... Add all those other titles to yourself and you find you are more than a trinity...

Ha ha ha... you just invented a polyman... a new species!!

 

[Soapy]

I'm not sure why I should be impressed. Genesis 1 states that God made man in his image: male and female created he them. That pretty much says that both the male and female aspects are found in God, who really is beyond gender, since he has no body

God made man in his (God) own image...

• he made ‘Man’ in his own image...

then:

• took out of man certain traits (metaphorical ‘Rib’) and fashioned them into another ‘man’ whom Adam called:
  • ‘Wo-Man’ which means:
    • “Taken out of Man”

Adam was indeed, Androgynous, in his creation. But God said he did not want Man to live alone - like he is ‘alone’... an ‘only God’: beside him there is no other God! - (How can God be alone if there are three of ‘HIM’??? Kick in the teeth to Trinitarians!)

The two, man and wo-man must come together in order to PRO-CREATE.

Procreation is ‘Flesh from flesh’... a physical production... a reproduction.

A Spirit, even almighty God, does not Procreate...

A Spirit can only CREATE!!

Trinity often cites God as having ‘born’ the Son and is therefore:

• ‘God from very God’

You can quickly see this is nonsense given that this would be a PROCREATION of a Spirit... a contradiction!!

 

[sojourner]

God made man in his (God) own image...

• he made ‘Man’ in his own image...

then:

• took out of man certain traits (metaphorical ‘Rib’) and fashioned them into another ‘man’ whom Adam called:
  • ‘Wo-Man’ which means:
    • “Taken out of Man”

Adam was indeed, Androgynous, in his creation. But God said he did not want Man to live alone - like he is ‘alone’... an ‘only God’: beside him there is no other God! - (How can God be alone if there are three of ‘HIM’??? Kick in the teeth to Trinitarians!)

The two, man and wo-man must come together in order to PRO-CREATE.

Procreation is ‘Flesh from flesh’... a physical production... a reproduction.

A Spirit, even almighty God, does not Procreate...

A Spirit can only CREATE!!

Trinity often cites God as having ‘born’ the Son and is therefore:

• ‘God from very God’

You can quickly see this is nonsense given that this would be a PROCREATION of a Spirit... a contradiction!!

It’s like listening to Bubba Blue prattle on about “The Shreeyumpin’ bidness...”

 

[Soapy]

It’s like listening to Bubba Blue prattle on about “The Shreeyumpin’ bidness...”

Why? What’s wrong with it.... exactly?

 

[sojourner]

Why? What’s wrong with it.... exactly?

Your whole foundation is based on a misunderstanding of the thought and theological basis of the creation myth. It’s riddled with bias which taints your “analysis.” In short, it’s an eisegetical treatment of the texts, which you then mold into “proof” of your preconceived notions.

 

[Soapy]

Your whole foundation is based on a misunderstanding of the thought and theological basis of the creation myth. It’s riddled with bias which taints your “analysis.” In short, it’s an eisegetical treatment of the texts, which you then mold into “proof” of your preconceived notions.

Oh I do so love mine enemy... I understand what you are saying (I’m not agreeing, though). But here’s what I Have to say:

• Please say what it is exactly that you do not agree with... Do not just say, ‘You are wrong’

I would love to hear and read what you think I’m saying that is not from the scriptures and outlines a cohesive, comprehensive, and realistic rendering of what scriptures says.

Sp, please, sojourner, outline my errors (so I can correct them in your eyes!)

 

[sojourner]

I would love to hear and read what you think I’m saying that is not from the scriptures and outlines a cohesive, comprehensive, and realistic rendering of what scriptures says

Don’t you understand? This isn’t about what is or is not scriptural. It’s all about how you interpret the scriptures you’re using as “evidence.” Your approach is wholly eisegetical — not exegetical. You’re beginning with your beliefs as the foundation driving your interpretation, rather than beginning with discovering what the texts actually say and letting that form the foundation of your belief.

 

[Soapy]

Don’t you understand? This isn’t about what is or is not scriptural. It’s all about how you interpret the scriptures you’re using as “evidence.” Your approach is wholly eisegetical — not exegetical. You’re beginning with your beliefs as the foundation driving your interpretation, rather than beginning with discovering what the texts actually say and letting that form the foundation of your belief.

What is it you are saying that I am saying is not true... eise or exe ... tell me what I said that wasn’t true.., tell me even Echad thing that isn’t true...

 

[sojourner]

What is it you are saying that I am saying is not true... eise or exe ... tell me what I said that wasn’t true.., tell me even Echad thing that isn’t true...

You’re simply not exegeting the texts — at all. First, you’re mushing together two completely different creation accounts: Gen 1 and Gen 2. It doesn’t work that way, because each is its own story, apparently written by two different writers. In chap 1, God creates humanity — not “a man.” It says, “In God’s image God created them — male AND female God created them.” That’s chap 1. It’s not until we get to the different story in chap 2 that the rib shows up. In that chapter, God took “the man” (the Hebrew term there is ish, meaning “male”) and out of ish created woman (the Hebrew there is ishah — “female”). Not together, as in chap 1, but one after the other. This indicates a different theological stance than chap 1. And the two don’t mix. In chap 2 they’re not made in God’s image.

Second, in neither chapter is man “androgynous.” In chap 1, God creates humanity in God’s image: “male and female.” Neither is androgynous. In chap 2, God creates ish (male). Ish is not an androgynous term.

Third, in neither chapter is God ever said to be “alone.” In fact, in chapter 1, God says, “Let us make humanity in our image.” God is speaking to the Divine Court.

fourth, in neither chapter is Jesus, or the Son, or Christ, or the Word, or any other reference to Jesus ever given. Jesus does not appear in Genesis. Therefore, Genesis cannot be used to either defend or refute doctrine concerning Jesus.

As I said, your whole premise is wack, therefore your argument is meaningless.

 

[Soapy]

I’m only answering some of your points because I don’t have time.

Third, in neither chapter is God ever said to be “alone.” In fact, in chapter 1, God says, “Let us make humanity in our image.” God is speaking to the Divine Court.

Third, in neither chapter is God ever said to be “alone.” In fact, in chapter 1, God says, “Let us make humanity in our image.” God is speaking to the Divine Court.

God was alone... he is alone in his glory which is exactly why he decided to create something to worship him.

He first creates workers to carry out his works in the creation. These creations are his ministering and messengering angels.

Angels are not weak weepy wingEd whoosies that are painted by renaissance painters and mortalised in stone statues like gorgons and such.

Angels are hugely powerful, immensely intelligent, and horrifically dutiful to their creator. Their sole purpose is to do what He commands them to do.

Creating a body is not a problem for an angel. A body is not something that is strictly functional. It only becomes functional when a spirit is put into it to enliven it.

You can think of a car, a computer, a robot, ... by itself it is just an inert object... it is only when a driver, a program, an instructional plan... is put into it that it becomes a functional entity. And this is what scriptures says:

• ‘And God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of the body and the man became a living soul’ (paraphrased for clarity)

The body existed before IT WAS ENLIVENED by a spirit being put in it.

And later on in time, the demon angels, ‘Made bodies for themselves...’ and put themselves (they ARE spirits) into those bodies and came to take the daughters of man and breed the Nephelims.

You wil notice that it was GOD that made man in his image... this ‘image’ is the personality of God, which means such as love, nurture, husbandry, wisdom, inventiveness, design, compassion, vanity, pride, forgiveness, forethought, etc.

So God was talking to the angels (the Divine Court, as you said) when he said, “Let us make man in our image”. Angels are Spirit Sons of God... they have all the major attributes of God their maker but are absolutely subservient to him. Creative design is within their ability but they cannot create a living spirit to put in it... for this, God put his spirit ‘breath’ to create the first human Being.

From this human Being the man created (procreated) from himself living Beings... just as God created Spirit Beings... these living Beings are children of the man, ‘sons’, but God said of the man:

• ‘Thou shalt not live alone...’

And he took from certain of his attributes (‘Rib’) and fashioned them into another ‘man’ and called it ‘Wo-man’, which is, ‘Taken out of Man’. And thus it takes a Man and a Wo-Man to come together to procreate and be a complete ‘Man’ as God created him in the beginning.

fourth, in neither chapter is Jesus, or the Son, or Christ, or the Word, or any other reference to Jesus ever given. Jesus does not appear in Genesis. Therefore, Genesis cannot be used to either defend or refute doctrine concerning Jesus

My exact point... I am anti-trinitarian. Where on earth or in heaven do you get the idea I am advocating that Jesus was in the beginning with God... not only is that a ridiculous idea but it is also obviously a contradiction if Jesus is God... there is no such thing as being something and being with the something you are supposed to be.

If Jesus is God and God is Father son and holy spiritual then, by that definition:

• The Son is Father Son and Holy Spirit.
• And the Father is Father Son and Holy Spirit
• And the Holy Spirit is Father Son and Holy Spirit

Not even trinitarians agree to that! Trump played!

Yet that is absolutely what Trinitarians declare their God as... weird, huh!!

 

[sojourner]

he is alone in his glory which is exactly why he decided to create something to worship him.

Where in the bible does it say that explicitly?

He first creates workers to carry out his works in the creation. These creations are his ministering and messengering angels.

Where in the bible does it say that explicitly?

You wil notice that it was GOD that made man in his image... this ‘image’ is the personality of God, which means such as love, nurture, husbandry, wisdom, inventiveness, design, compassion, vanity, pride, forgiveness, forethought, etc.

Where in the bible does it say that these particular attributes are what it means to be created "in God's image?" In fact, the bible says that God created humanity in God's image -- "male and female God created them."

So God was talking to the angels (the Divine Court, as you said) when he said, “Let us make man in our image”

Oh? Where is it specified that angels comprised the Divine court? You do realize that these early depictions of God were henotheistic and not monotheistic, yes?

Angels are Spirit Sons of God... they have all the major attributes of God their maker but are absolutely subservient to him.

Do they?

Creative design is within their ability but they cannot create a living spirit to put in it... for this, God put his spirit ‘breath’ to create the first human Being.

Where in the bible does it specifically say this? Your post sounds like a lot of made-up hooey to me.

And he took from certain of his attributes (‘Rib’) and fashioned them into another ‘man’ and called it ‘Wo-man’, which is, ‘Taken out of Man’. And thus it takes a Man and a Wo-Man to come together to procreate and be a complete ‘Man’ as God created him in the beginning.

No. You're mushing stories again.

My exact point... I am anti-trinitarian. Where on earth or in heaven do you get the idea I am advocating that Jesus was in the beginning with God

You're the one who's using Genesis to try to bolster your argument. I'm just showing you how that can't work.

 

[Soapy]

You're the one who's using Genesis to try to bolster your argument. I'm just showing you how that can't work.

You have not shown a single thing other than object to the truth and demand proof.

It WOULD appear that you know nothing of scriptures and are solely here to discredit that which you do not know about.

Tgis is the reason you cannot state what your objections are and what you believe in.

There is a name for a person who objects to the truth!

 

[sojourner]

You have not shown a single thing other than object to the truth and demand proof.

It WOULD appear that you know nothing of scriptures and are solely here to discredit that which you do not know about.

Tgis is the reason you cannot state what your objections are and what you believe in.

There is a name for a person who objects to the truth!

'K, since you know so much about the bible, in what way does a text that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Jesus tell us something fundamental about Jesus? In what factual way does Genesis bolster your argument that the Trinity is really polytheistic? And don't give me opinion. I want you to tell me specific passages that directly and specifically state that Jesus is not Divine. Same goes for the rest of the Pentateuch -- and the Tanach for that matter.

 

[Soapy]

'K, since you know so much about the bible, in what way does a text that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Jesus tell us something fundamental about Jesus? In what factual way does Genesis bolster your argument that the Trinity is really polytheistic? And don't give me opinion. I want you to tell me specific passages that directly and specifically state that Jesus is not Divine. Same goes for the rest of the Pentateuch -- and the Tanach for that matter.

Wow, you haven’t read what I’ve been writing but you are criticising?

I told you that trinity believes in three Rulers: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Three Rulers is polytheism...!!

Each Ruler has different attributes as trinity expresses. What trinity does us set the three Rulers as ‘God’. This means that ‘God’ is an office... what they wrongfully call ‘Godhead’.

In the scriptures, the Only God of the Jews describes the saviour to come as his ‘Servant’, and as a ‘Son’.

How can it be that a co-equal, co-almighty, co-authorities ‘ruler in God’ be classed as a ‘Servant’?

In addition, the only God of the Jews said that he was pleased that Jesus should be filled with the fullness of God.

So how many times have I asked the question of what Jesus was before God filled him with the fullness? How many times have I received an answer? ... none, not once!!

And why none? Simple.. because after considering that the answer would have to be that Jesus was not God, it is better not to answer...!

And, seeing that Jesus is destined to sit on the earthly throne of his forefather, King David, how could Jesus be God who is demoted to a fleshly reign over creation (that he himself trinity claims carried out) when Jesus, by trinity claims, is already ruler over an immensely greater kingdom of Heaven?

You make an absolutely brilliant observation for a trinitarian... a rare beast indeed, that Jesus is nowhere found in the book of Genesis. Virtually all Trinitarians swear blind (because they are blind!!) that the trinity is expressed there by virtue of God saying ‘Let us make man’?

Why would there be a need for a committee of exact co-equal, co-authorative, co-almighty, co-Willed, to make a decision? And who, in trinity, made that decision... certainly, the one that did, by trinity, ‘is greater than all’.. and Jesus says, ‘My Father is greater than all’.. hmmm .. !!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God "

The word means the message of christ passion incarnated not christ himself. Word being message not a person. The message/Word of god has always been with god since the beginning. Since no one listened to his Word, he made his word incarnated as jesus. It's the same message/word but in human form. This word sacrificed himself on the cross and it joined back to the person who created it/him.

Word=dictation from god (message of his passion)
Christ=incarnation of that message
God=being the one who created the incarnation to be the internal message insofar this "message" can have a personal relationship with people and they can share in god's word just as christ.

Nothing more than that. You can call the message god since they are inseparable but why is it wrong to say they are separate? It's all the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's like my mother giving a message to my siblings. They didn't listen. So, she sent me, the oldest, to BE the message itself. So, instead of the siblings trying to discipher mother's oral words, they can know have "a relationship with me" as my mother's message itself. In doing so, they have a relationship with not only me, but my mother as well.

That's the trinity. Not sure why it's seen as paganism. It just means relationship between three. That's totally in scripture.

 

[sojourner]

I told you that trinity believes in three Rulers: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Three Rulers is polytheism...!!

A) That's patently NOT what the doctrine states. Period. Read. The. Doctrine.
B) I explicitly asked you to show me how any text of the Tanakh informs us about Jesus. This doesn't remotely do that. You're evading, because you don't have an answer.

In the scriptures, the Only God of the Jews describes the saviour to come as his ‘Servant’, and as a ‘Son’.

No, in scripture the one God of the Jews describes the Messiah as such. But none of the OT texts is talking about Jesus. That's an interpretation you have overlayed on what the texts actually say.

In addition, the only God of the Jews said that he was pleased that Jesus should be filled with the fullness of God.

No, again, the one God of the Jews said that. And what do you think "filled with the fullness of God means? Exegete that passage for me. And I want reliable sources cited.

And, seeing that Jesus is destined to sit on the earthly throne of his forefather, King David, how could Jesus be God who is demoted to a fleshly reign over creation (that he himself trinity claims carried out) when Jesus, by trinity claims, is already ruler over an immensely greater kingdom of Heaven?

You make an absolutely brilliant observation for a trinitarian... a rare beast indeed, that Jesus is nowhere found in the book of Genesis. Virtually all Trinitarians swear blind (because they are blind!!) that the trinity is expressed there by virtue of God saying ‘Let us make man’?

Why would there be a need for a committee of exact co-equal, co-authorative, co-almighty, co-Willed, to make a decision? And who, in trinity, made that decision... certainly, the one that did, by trinity, ‘is greater than all’.. and Jesus says, ‘My Father is greater than all’.. hmmm .. !!

None of this -- None -- is telling where the Tanakh informs us of anything about Jesus.

Can you not even provide simple, honest replies to simple requests? I asked you to show me where in the Tanakh we can find information about Jesus' status. That was it. And you can't (or won't) do it. You'd rather preach your agenda. You're doing what you accuse me of doing above.

Show me where in the Tanakh information about Jesus can be found.

 

[sojourner]

The word means the message of christ passion incarnated not christ himself. Word being message not a person. The message/Word of god has always been with god since the beginning. Since no one listened to his Word, he made his word incarnated as jesus. It's the same message/word but in human form. This word sacrificed himself on the cross and it joined back to the person who created it/him.

Word=dictation from god (message of his passion)
Christ=incarnation of that message
God=being the one who created the incarnation to be the internal message insofar this "message" can have a personal relationship with people and they can share in god's word just as christ.

Nothing more than that. You can call the message god since they are inseparable but why is it wrong to say they are separate? It's all the same.

This theology is untenable at best, and the exegesis is non-existent.

 

[sojourner]

It's like my mother giving a message to my siblings. They didn't listen. So, she sent me, the oldest, to BE the message itself. So, instead of the siblings trying to discipher mother's oral words, they can know have "a relationship with me" as my mother's message itself. In doing so, they have a relationship with not only me, but my mother as well.

That's the trinity. Not sure why it's seen as paganism. It just means relationship between three. That's totally in scripture.

No. That's not Trinity, because it's not what the doctrine says.

Please, please, please, good people! Read. The. Doctrine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. That's not Trinity, because it's not what the doctrine says.

Please, please, please, good people! Read. The. Doctrine.

That's where I got the context of the example from. It didn't come from nowhere. Just I don't repeat the same explanation and justification that many christians do. It's easier to break it down rather than repeat recycled verses.

God the creator (genesis)
Word/message (law of god)
Message didn't work (hence OT issues)
God and word cannot be separated (they are one)
God made his word incarnated (Hebrews)
The incarnation is jesus christ
Jesus christ (the new law of his passion) walked among his creation so they can be saved

People need to believe in this new law (love god/love neighbor) by asking christ to save them. When they are saved by this law, they reunite with god in heaven. Christ is just the new law incarnated.

I listed scriptures years ago but it seems people rather argue recycled verses rather than address it from another perspective they're not familiar with.