How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[sojourner]

I would suppose. But then can one help others to have faith or then what would be the purpose of training? For some reason it sounds very philosophical to me, like if someone becomes a Buddhist expert and practices Buddhism. If Buddhists have seminaries I don't know, maybe they do.

A big part of seminary training is church history and polity. Another part is biblical exegesis and constructive theology. Then there are classes in spiritual formation and Christian education. These all work together to equip the clergy for forming congregations in faith and the Apostles’ teaching.

 

[sojourner]

Rubbish... seminars are set up to make money for the speakers and to push a cause. It’s more attractive to have broad based seminars so more people will attend and have them GENERIC so everyone attending THINKS (or maybe actually some do) gain knowledge from it.

Religious seminar? On what? How to read the scriptures?????? Tosh!!!

It’s like what happens in schools now: general schools are not allowed to teach CHRISTIANITY, per se!! They must teach GENERIC religious beliefs... When this is applied, our children just get confused as to what they should believe and start seeing Christianity as a fairy story.

The teachers have very little knowledge about the bible because they themselves do not need to... The lessons they give are much like the ‘seminars’ in that it’s just another pay day!

Why do christians want to know about Ead? Shall we go on a pilgrimage to Mecca as a field trip, class?

Why does a Muslim want to know about Sikhism or CHRISTMAS? Muslims do not believe in Jesus Christ as ‘Son of God’ so why do they celebrate Xmas (Xmas!!!) Oh yes.. because Xmas is about GETTING undeserved PRESENTS, stuffing yourself silly with food, wine, and sugar-Ladened pudding, and forgetting about your God while playing video games or binge-watching Netflix films.

Generic seminars tend towards indoctrination. The atmosphere of the event draws the attendees into the SPIRIT and this makes them more susceptible to whatever GENERIC doctrine is taught.

Generic ideology of Christianity favours trinitarianism. The fallacy is compounded when sceptical attendees see so many others ‘fevered’ by the ‘clever’ presenters who are there to get paid and push there generic agendas. They feel they must agree or look foolish!!

How is it reconciled that ‘God raised up this Jesus that you know’ if Jesus IS GOD...

But wait, God is ESSENCE...

Or in your case, you do not even know who or what God is because you don’t have a definition - despite the fact that it is you who defined God as ESSENCE???

But you do t know what ESSENCE IS...

Yet your doctrine (that you don’t know) says that Jesus is one of three persons who share in the essence that you cannot define!!! Strange?

This is why your seminars teach the way they do - it’s ‘The Emperors Clothes’ scenario!!:
Alls seems to be going well until a little boy who doesn’t know to keep his mouth shut at such places jumps up and says:

• “That doesn’t make sense. I have three fish in fish bowl who share the same water equally but that doesn’t make each fish WATER!! And the water is contained in the fishbowl. If the water is ESSENCE and the three persons are GOD in the water - what is the container (fishbowl) of the ESSENCE?’

The gathering is annoyed by the boys interjection and the mother is embarrassed and tries to hush him up.

But then someone else stands up and says:

• ‘Wow, he’s right...! I was thinking it didn’t sound right but I felt silly to stand up and say so... oh my gosh! Yes... it DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!’

All of a sudden, a dozen and more localised murmuring turns into a torrent of desperate pleas for clarification and anger at being duped!!

Seminar over - the presenters run for cover towards the car park exit!

You don’t know the difference between a seminar and a seminary. Once again, you don’t know the thing you argue against and it results in these tiresome diatribes that are apropos of nothing.

 

[sojourner]

This is turning religion into science... Science cannot explain GOD and so will seek to destroy God from religion

No. It teaches theological thinking which is far different from teaching the scientific method.

 

[Soapy]

I believe it is. The term "most high" does not have to relate to one entity alone, but the term does designate that someone or something is "most high" in whatever course it takes.

“The most high” is singular definite article - an explicit entity.

“A Most high’ refers to any of a number of individual high[est] entities... plural indefinite article.

The trinity God is therefore Plural as it refers to multiple ‘Most High’s - three, precisely.

And since sojourner is afraid to defend the word, ‘God’, let it be know that it means, amongst other things, “Ruler”.

Therefore, as well as claiming that “God” is Essence (Essence that he cannot define!), he is actually claiming that there are ‘Three PERSONS who are ONE RULER’.

Can there be THREE EQUAL RULERS in Ang system? In fact three rulers who are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY... They are CO-mpletely LIKE each other in every way ...

Ask therefore, if they are all as such, WHY THREE? Why not TWO (Father and Son) - afterall, the trinity THIRD PERSON is NOTHING LIKE the other two... yet trinity says it’s the same.... but in fact, Jesus only says:

• ‘If you see me then you see the Father also!’
• ‘I am going to my Father (‘My God’)‘

And and often misquoted utterance of Thomas the unbeliever, has him saying of Jesus:

• ‘My Lord and My God’

which trinity claims is Thomas claiming he was seeing GOD THE FATHER AS JESUS (or Jesus as God the Father) which is odd as Thomas makes no mention of a third person... Oddly, do you notice the NON-REACTION of the other TEN APOSTLES who witnessed the same person as Thomas did... IF YOU WERE SEEING GOD ALMIGHTY would you SAY NOTHING and DO NOTHING... and even more, the Apostles WENT BACK TO THEIR DAY JOB soon after the encounter... AND doesn’t scriptures say that anyone [of sinful humanity] who sees Almighty God would instantly die... yet Thomas was still living - and so too were all the other apostles...

So is scriptures lying or was Thomas lying that he had seen ALMIGHTY GOD?

 

[Soapy]

You don’t know the difference between a seminar and a seminary. Once again, you don’t know the thing you argue against and it results in these tiresome diatribes that are apropos of nothing.

Er,,, I have been to seminars, Thank you, and watched Seminary lessons on utube. I wasn’t impressed with the false deliberate misconceptions, misdirections, and unqualified demands on belief that were incongruous with scriptures:

• ‘God was born as a child’
• ‘God (Jesus??!!) shrouded his almightiness and his power to allow himself to be treated the same as any other human Being’... really?
  
• ‘God was raised from the dead by God and seated next to God and given power to rule by God until God gave it back to God..’!!
• ‘God was REWARDED with rulership over creation for giving God’s life for mankind (can God die?)’

A Seminary is only an explicit Seminar on theology.

*** Mod Edit ***

 

[YoursTrue]

A big part of seminary training is church history and polity. Another part is biblical exegesis and constructive theology. Then there are classes in spiritual formation and Christian education. These all work together to equip the clergy for forming congregations in faith and the Apostles’ teaching.

Ok, got it. Thanks. Can't say I agree with all of it but I'm beginning to understand your terminology.

 

[sojourner]

Er,,, I have been to seminars

Me too. Not the same as a graduate course of study in a particular discipline.

watched Seminary lessons on utube

Srrsly? YouTube lessons are in no way synonymous with or comparable to graduate-level study.

A Seminary is only an explicit Seminar on theology

No. It’s not. You make these wild accusations regarding things you know nothing about, and then condemn the thing that frightens you.

Look at it this way: watching a YouTube video on how to apply basic first aid to a cut does not supplant a course of study at medical school. Watching such a video does not make one a physician. Watching such a video does not make one a theologian.

 

[sojourner]

Well, it certainly didn’t make you any wiser on the truth of scriptures.

You're not equipped to make that determination.

but then again, you can’t graduate with your fallacy degree unless you mimic your teachers.

Not true. In fact, the printed guidelines made it quite clear that they were not there to force-feed doctrine; that they were there to teach us how to think, and we could feel free to disagree with them, so long as our work showed cogent thought.

If your teachers/Lecturers were really teaching what the Apostles taught then you wouldn’t be expressing a ‘different Jesus’ us in this forum thread.

They (again) didn't teach doctrine.

• No Apostle taught that Jesus was God almighty

• No Apostle taught that God was three persons

• No Apostle taught that ‘God’ was ‘Essence’

Yeah. They did. And do.

God and Jesus are clearly identified as separate and DISTINCTLY different personages

Yeah, well, that's precisely what the doctrine says. If you'd read it, you'd know that.

I guess your fallacy teachers didn’t teach you these elementary things ... I guess they taught you that God sent himself his own testimony to the servants but forgot about the third God in the unequal but co-equal cohort!!

You guess. That's all you're doing here. *** Mod Edit ***

 

[Soapy]

Soapy said:
Well, it certainly didn’t make you any wiser on the truth of scriptures.

sojourner replied:
You're not equipped to make that determination.

You are right - it’s hard to determine how much more wrong you could have been from not knowing how wrong you were in the first place!

Soapy asked:
but then again, you can’t graduate with your fallacy degree unless you mimic your teachers.

sojourner replied:
Not true. In fact, the printed guidelines made it quite clear that they were not there to force-feed doctrine; that they were there to teach us how to think, and we could feel free to disagree with them, so long as our work showed cogent thought.

If I’m right then they wouldn’t need to force feed you... you gulped it down like a hungry wolf. It’s clear that you didn’t question the ‘rotting meat’ you were given. You didn’t question the veracity of the doctrinal diatribe they dished out.

sojourner, if GOD gave Jesus the power to perform miracles, who is God that gave him the power - if Jesus is that self-same God... oh, you can’t say because you don’t know who and what God is... oh.., no no .. you said God is Essence: So ESSENCE gave Jesus the power to do miracles? I see, I see!!!

Soapy asked:
If your teachers/Lecturers were really teaching what the Apostles taught then you wouldn’t be expressing a ‘different Jesus’ us in this forum thread.

sojourner replied:
They (again) didn't teach doctrine.

So now you are saying that your teachers didn’t teach doctrine...??? So what DID they teach you - and exactly WHAT is this DOCTRINE you keep going in about and that you hold to so dearly but cannot state not define for us to understand what you are talking about - Were your lessons in ‘Obfuscation’ and disingenuousness!!?

Soapy asked:

• No Apostle taught that Jesus was God almighty

• No Apostle taught that God was three persons

• No Apostle taught that ‘God’ was ‘Essence’

sojourner replied:
Yeah. They did. And do.

Please supply some evidence of your claim... book, chapter, and. verse, please... I’m interested in what you gave to say here.

Soapy said:
God and Jesus are clearly identified as separate and DISTINCTLY different personages

sojourner replied:
Yeah, well, that's precisely what the doctrine says. If you'd read it, you'd know that.

You keep talking about ‘doctrine’ but never present anything of it! Please show the ‘Doctrine’ that states your claim. From what I read from you, you are inferring that:

• Jesus and God ARE the same person - indistinct and inseparable

AND:

• Jesus and God ARE different persons (??) separate and distinct

AND:

• God is ESSENCE in which the tri-person trinity cohort share meaning that God is not a person but some ‘je ne sais quoi’ FLAVOUR ENCOMPASSING (since the three are IN IT) said tri-person cohort!! - Bug hoe to you describe it?

Soapy said:
I guess your fallacy teachers didn’t teach you these elementary things ... I guess they taught you that God sent himself his own testimony to the servants but forgot about the third God in the unequal but co-equal cohort!!

sojourner replied:
You guess. That's all you're doing here. Giving us nothing but posts that are "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

When were you last in school... ‘I guess’ in terms of the debate line, is not ‘Guessing at random’... it is just giving rope by not committing to a definitive statement, I guess!!

 

[YoursTrue]

You are right - it’s hard to determine how much more wrong you could have been from not knowing how wrong you were in the first place!
If I’m right then they wouldn’t need to force feed you... you gulped it down like a hungry wolf. It’s clear that you didn’t question the ‘rotting meat’ you were given. You didn’t question the veracity of the doctrinal diatribe they dished out.

sojourner, if GOD gave Jesus the power to perform miracles, who is God that gave him the power - if Jesus is that self-same God... oh, you can’t say because you don’t know who and what God is... oh.., no no .. you said God is Essence: So ESSENCE gave Jesus the power to do miracles? I see, I see!!!So now you are saying that your teachers didn’t teach doctrine...??? So what DID they teach you - and exactly WHAT is this DOCTRINE you keep going in about and that you hold to so dearly but cannot state not define for us to understand what you are talking about - Were your lessons in ‘Obfuscation’ and disingenuousness!!?Please supply some evidence of your claim... book, chapter, and. verse, please... I’m interested in what you gave to say here.You keep talking about ‘doctrine’ but never present anything of it! Please show the ‘Doctrine’ that states your claim. From what I read from you, you are inferring that:

• Jesus and God ARE the same person - indistinct and inseparable

AND:

• Jesus and God ARE different persons (??) separate and distinct

AND:

• God is ESSENCE in which the tri-person trinity cohort share meaning that God is not a person but some ‘je ne sais quoi’ FLAVOUR ENCOMPASSING (since the three are IN IT) said tri-person cohort!! - Bug hoe to you describe it?

When were you last in school... ‘I guess’ in terms of the debate line, is not ‘Guessing at random’... it is just giving rope by not committing to a definitive statement, I guess!!

I give "definite answers," yet you have a different take on them. So... that's what makes the world go round, as the expression goes.. of course, not literally.

 

[Soapy]

I give "definite answers," yet you have a different take on them. So... that's what makes the world go round, as the expression goes.. of course, not literally.

I don’t know if you thought the last post was responding to you - it was to sojourner.

Let’s see if sojourner gives ANY ANSWERS... he appears to have only been taught how NOT TO ANSWER questions on the trinity and to just offer refutations against anything that is of the truth.

I’m kinda interested in how he claims that the apostles taught that Jesus is God and that God is Essence....

• 1) Jesus is God
• 2) God is Essence
• .: Jesus is Essence

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t know if you thought the last post was responding to you - it was to sojourner.

Let’s see if sojourner gives ANY ANSWERS... he appears to have only been taught how NOT TO ANSWER questions on the trinity and to just offer refutations against anything that is of the truth.

I’m kinda interested in how he claims that the apostles taught that Jesus is God and that God is Essence....

• 1) Jesus is God
• 2) God is Essence
• .: Jesus is Essence

I felt impelled to answer. I am beginning to understand sojourner but I have given definite answers to you and you've given definite answers to me but we do not agree both on the premises and conclusion. So?

 

[Soapy]

I felt impelled to answer. I am beginning to understand sojourner but I have given definite answers to you and you've given definite answers to me but we do not agree both on the premises and conclusion. So?

We both agree that Jesus is MAN - a human Being made in the manner of the first Adam: sinless and holy.

What we disagree on is the pre-existence of Jesus. Or at least I disagree that Jesus was pre-existent.

I see no sense.... I see no evidence... I see no reality that Jesus should be pre-existent.

I see the LAST ADAM as being exactly the same as the FIRST ADAM (up until the first Adam sinned).

I see the repeated theme in the scriptures of:

• The first son sins and a second is brought up in line to replace him AS THE MOST BELOVED son (the ‘FIRSTBORN’*** son):
• Adam (Son of God) - ....
• Cain - (Abel)/Seth
• Ishmael - Isaac
• Esau - Jacob
• Rueben - Joseph
• Eliab - David
• Amnon/Absolom/Adonijah - Solomon
• Israel nation (God’s FIRSTBORN) - All Nations
• .... Jesus (Son of God)

I’ve yet to hear how you justify your claim that Jesus was pre-existent and came to be MAN!

Maybe if we thrash this out then we can come to an agreement about the truth - one of us will change our minds and learn scriptural reality.

(*** Ask me if you don’t understand the difference:

• ‘First Born’ (Chronological First from the womb in birth)
• ‘Firstborn’ (Most beloved of the Father)

 

[Soapy]

I felt impelled to answer. I am beginning to understand sojourner but I have given definite answers to you and you've given definite answers to me but we do not agree both on the premises and conclusion. So?

You ‘start to understand sojourner’?!

Yes, that’s what happens when you look at the SCIENCE of scriptures.

And SCIENCE denies Almighty God: YHWH: The Father.

That’s the DANGER I’m warning you about!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you can. And you can also take scrap metal and attempt to put a man in orbit. But you lack the tools in both instances to get the job done. Bible study involves FAR more than just reading the texts and reading a couple of commentary entries. Formulating theological constructions involves more than simply reading the Bible on a surface level and “comparing” passages. Just as simple arithmetic and the use of a tape measure won’t get a man into orbit.


Sure, you can look at it. But that cursory and rudimentary look won’t tell you much. It might support some confirmation bias, but that’s hardly helpful — and the particular passages at which you’re looking aren’t particularly cogent to the issue. Again, that’s like taking a basic look at the shape of a spacecraft and declaring that it will safely return to earth.


Still not cogent to the discussion of the concept of first among equals.

I realize that one can divide equal portions of something. But I do not see that any of the three persons are equal to the other. Also in the eternal sense. By the definition of the subordination of the persons, the Bible says about God and His Son:
1Cor. 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
1Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1Cor. 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
1Cor. 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

At any rate, what a wonderful promise God gives us by means of His word, the Bible. Death will be abolished. How wonderful!

 

[YoursTrue]

Im confused... why are you debating with sojourner if this is your stance?

Are you just filling up your time or wanting to get to the truth of scriptures..?

You obviously don’t believe in trinity but are floundering in exactly what you do believe. I saw you move towards the truth previously but you appear to be trying NOT TO UPSET sojourner by offering hi excuses for his clearly unscriptural ideology which he cannot even define for our debate purposes.

And remember that is is a DEBATE thread - not a DISCUSSION thread!! You don’t feel ‘sorry’ for your antagonist in a DEBATE!

If that's what it is, that you can't AGREE with or UNDERSTAND the point someone is making, then -- all's I can say is: hasta la vista, senor.

 

[Soapy]

I realize that one can divide equal portions of something. But I do not see that any of the three persons are equal to the other. Also in the eternal sense. By the definition of the subordination of the persons, the Bible says about God and His Son:
1Cor. 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
1Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1Cor. 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
1Cor. 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

At any rate, what a wonderful promise God gives us by means of His word, the Bible. Death will be abolished. How wonderful!

This is just to you, YoursTrue... it’s not answering to sojourner.

The one true God is NOT DIVISIBLE. God is not a CAKE that can be divided into three equal portions. Trinity fouls up using this type of analogy so badly that only the dangerous philosophical argument could give it sense.

All through the OT, the scriptures sustains the absolute ONE GOD ... in truth though, it actually means ‘ONLY GOD’.

Here is where trinity starts the twister with translations of ‘One God’ but if you read it with integrity in mind you will find that ‘One God’ does not fit the definition.

Understand the context. The Israelites were in and amongst and surrounded by tribes and nations that believed in many Deities as Gods. Each had a name the pagans and heathens called upon directly for aspects of their lives personal, familial, or communal: a God of rain, A god of harvest, a god of fertility, a god of the sea, individual gods for ... well, almost everything!

Well, this was not an issue for the Israelites in the beginning because they kept to their ONLY GOD for all things... until they were enslaved by the Egyptians for such a long period of time.

The enthusiasm and excitement and inducement of multiple-god worship by the Egyptians and seen by the Israelites infused the Israelites into desiring a NAME for their ONLY GOD in line with the likes of their pagan master.

Moses’ encounter with his Israelite God clearly showed that the Israelites were becoming confused as to the singularity of their deitific viewpoint: they demanded to know the Names of the God from whom the message to go into the desert to worship came from:

• ‘If I should bring them the message they will ask me WHICH GOD HAS SENT ME: what is his name?’ (Paraphrased)

Here are some interesting point to take into account:

1. The Israelites were starting to lean towards ‘other pagan Gods, hence:
2. They required a name for their God in line with their captors Gods
3. They requested ‘HIS’ (singular) name

I feel that the Israelites viewed God as a single Deitic individual (a God) and not as a complex multiple person ‘God’.

Non-Trinitarians view their deity God, I believe, in that manner... as a single being, just as that single Spirit Being says of himself:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is your ONLY GOD!’ (my capitals)

You will, of course, read elsewhere that the verse says:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is ONE GOD!’

But really... does it make sense? It is directed at establishing that YHWH is ‘only one’... but who on earth or in heaven was ever claiming that YHWH was anything MORE THAN ONE... the contention was concerning THAT THE PAGANS BELIEVED IN MANY GODS who EACH controlled one or more aspect of universal (flesh or spirit) life. YHWH, I believe, told his Israelite people that they were to WORSHIP HIM ALONE... that He and He alone controlled ALL ASPECTS OF EVERYTHING... this does not suggest that there were more than one deity in this ONE YHWH GOD!

 

[Soapy]

If that's what it is, that you can't AGREE with or UNDERSTAND the point someone is making, then -- all's I can say is: hasta la vista, senor.

I can’t understand what you mean... are you saying that you should ‘understand’ the viewpoint of someone who is obviously expressing wrongful doctrine???

I can take it that you ‘understand HOW they come to believe their wrongful doctrine’ but to say you ‘understand’ such that you are aiming at AGREEING with the wrongful doctrine.

I did ask you what you believe was Jesus’ position in Heaven but I’m not sure I received an answer from you. I’m really interested in your answer to that question since I gave you my answer in full.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is just to you, YoursTrue... it’s not answering to sojourner.

The one true God is NOT DIVISIBLE. God is not a CAKE that can be divided into three equal portions. Trinity fouls up using this type of analogy so badly that only the dangerous philosophical argument could give it sense.

All through the OT, the scriptures sustains the absolute ONE GOD ... in truth though, it actually means ‘ONLY GOD’.

Here is where trinity starts the twister with translations of ‘One God’ but if you read it with integrity in mind you will find that ‘One God’ does not fit the definition.

Understand the context. The Israelites were in and amongst and surrounded by tribes and nations that believed in many Deities as Gods. Each had a name the pagans and heathens called upon directly for aspects of their lives personal, familial, or communal: a God of rain, A god of harvest, a god of fertility, a god of the sea, individual gods for ... well, almost everything!

Well, this was not an issue for the Israelites in the beginning because they kept to their ONLY GOD for all things... until they were enslaved by the Egyptians for such a long period of time.

The enthusiasm and excitement and inducement of multiple-god worship by the Egyptians and seen by the Israelites infused the Israelites into desiring a NAME for their ONLY GOD in line with the likes of their pagan master.

Moses’ encounter with his Israelite God clearly showed that the Israelites were becoming confused as to the singularity of their deitific viewpoint: they demanded to know the Names of the God from whom the message to go into the desert to worship came from:

• ‘If I should bring them the message they will ask me WHICH GOD HAS SENT ME: what is his name?’ (Paraphrased)

Here are some interesting point to take into account:

1. The Israelites were starting to lean towards ‘other pagan Gods, hence:
2. They required a name for their God in line with their captors Gods
3. They requested ‘HIS’ (singular) name

I feel that the Israelites viewed God as a single Deitic individual (a God) and not as a complex multiple person ‘God’.

Non-Trinitarians view their deity God, I believe, in that manner... as a single being, just as that single Spirit Being says of himself:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is your ONLY GOD!’ (my capitals)

You will, of course, read elsewhere that the verse says:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is ONE GOD!’

But really... does it make sense? It is directed at establishing that YHWH is ‘only one’... but who on earth or in heaven was ever claiming that YHWH was anything MORE THAN ONE... the contention was concerning THAT THE PAGANS BELIEVED IN MANY GODS who EACH controlled one or more aspect of universal (flesh or spirit) life. YHWH, I believe, told his Israelite people that they were to WORSHIP HIM ALONE... that He and He alone controlled ALL ASPECTS OF EVERYTHING... this does not suggest that there were more than one deity in this ONE YHWH GOD!

Now please try to understand that I am not a trinitarian. I do NOT believe that there are three persons OF one God, each person also called God. No, I do not believe that. However, and it's a big however, I do not believe that trinitarians believe the three persons can be compared to a cake divided in three (equal?) portions.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can’t understand what you mean... are you saying that you should ‘understand’ the viewpoint of someone who is obviously expressing wrongful doctrine???

As much as possible, if possible. (Yes.)

I can take it that you ‘understand HOW they come to believe their wrongful doctrine’ but to say you ‘understand’ such that you are aiming at AGREEING with the wrongful doctrine.

No, you misunderstand. I do not believe the doctrine and I do not see, from the doctrinal explanations, that it is in harmony with the Bible.

I did ask you what you believe was Jesus’ position in Heaven but I’m not sure I received an answer from you. I’m really interested in your answer to that question since I gave you my answer in full.

While it's kind of deep, here's a start:
Revelation 3:20,21:
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me. 21To the one who is victorious, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.[