1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured That darned trinity.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Jeremiah Ames, Jan 30, 2018.

  1. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    And it still adds up to 300% of God, that is, three gods.
    But not 100% of you. 100% of you is the sum of your body, soul and spirit, and thus, given each has a positive value, each in itself is less than 100% of you.
    But again, each is not 100% of you.
    Then explain why the churches agree with me and not with you. Explain why the Trinity has to be 'a mystery in the strict sense' and 'not contrary to reason but above reason' (which is nonsense), instead of being a coherent and reasoned hypothesis,
    In Mark Jesus doesn't arrive in 'a body prepared for' him but is a standard human, and not son of God till adopted at his baptism. '

    In (Matthew and) Luke Jesus does not arrive 'in a body prepared for' him but grows in utero from a zygote to an embryo to a fetus to a human with a Y chromosome. Where in that story did the Y chromosome come from? If it isn't God's, in what sense is Jesus the 'son of God' here? (The story is essentially from Greek tradition,)
    Jesus repeatedly denies he's God. I set out an extended list of quotes each of which is a clear and unequivocal denial in Jesus' own words that Jesus is God.

    Thomas says Jesus is God. This is a direct contradiction of Jesus.

    They can't both be right. Are you calling Jesus a serial liar?
    First, I didn't make up the definition of the Trinity (or of a 'mystery in the strict sense'). The RCC did that and the Anglicans / Piscos followed them, as any thoughtful Trinitarian must.
    So now not only Thomas but John Gill wants to contradict Jesus' own words, Jesus' own repeatedly stated position. Naturally you're free to accept Thomas and John Gill if Jesus' own words aren't good enough for you.
    Dear oh dear! The God of the Tanakh, the God Jesus said he worshiped, is NOT Triune. If you won't take Jesus' word for it, ask any Jew.

    And I'll make the point to you that I already made to Oeste:.

    I want to see you grasp the real nettles, and say, for instance, "When Jesus says (John 17:3) 'And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent', thus carefully distinguishing himself from the only true God, he's simply mistaken, or else he's lying."

    And so on through the list of quotes I gave in #35 and Trailblazer added to in #46.​
    Let me put it this way. In my view the sum of body + soul + spirit is the sum 100+0+0=100.
     
    #61 blü 2, Feb 2, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,872
    Ratings:
    +5,106
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    So easy to understand!

    I see it this way by using a colander as the example...

    There are those whose beliefs are a colander. They place the word of God into the colander and everything that runs through it they keep to support their beliefs and throw out the scritpures that don't support it.

    The proper way is to make the word of God the colander. Throw all your beliefs into the word of God colander and whatever passes through keep. Those beliefs that remain in the colander, you throw out.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,872
    Ratings:
    +5,106
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Yes, you have made it abundantly clear of your position/

    I'm not sure what churches you are talking about. Some churches don't even believe in the virgin birth.

    I fellowship with almost a dozen denominations and non-denominational and haven't heard what you share.

    .
    I don't agree.

    .
    Yes... you are using tradition that makes God's word of none effect... I offer scripture.

    Heb 15:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

    After all, creating things isn't a problem for God.

    We have gone in circles on this one. John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

    Since Jesus didn't seem to have a problem when he said that, since he never corrected him and never said "NOPE, you got it wrong Thomas", I can only wonder why you do.


    I find that "the mystery" is something totally different. No mystery that we are three parts, each with a different purpose, each having a different materiality... yet still one.

    But you are welcome to believe differently.
     
    #63 KenS, Feb 2, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2018
  4. InChrist

    InChrist Free4ever

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    8,487
    Ratings:
    +2,074
    Very good!
     
  5. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,276
    Ratings:
    +2,588
    Thank you for your response.
    I am wondering why you posted ' this human had a soul..' because at Genesis 2:7 it does Not say Adam had a soul.
    I find Adam became a living soul at Genesis 2:7. I don't read that Adam had a soul, nor do I read Adam was given a soul, nor that Adam possessed a soul, but that Adam was a soul. So, at death Adam became a dead soul - Ecclesiastes 3:20, or as Ezekiel 18:4,20 says the soul that sins dies. Adam sinned Adam died.
    Even gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts of the Apostles 3:23 that the soul can be destroyed.
    Mortal Adam went from non-life, to life, and returned back to non-life as per Genesis 3:19.
    No post-mortem life for Adam but he returned back to non-life.
    A person can Not 'return' to a place he never was before.

    True, Jesus was a spirit person and that was before God sent the pre-human Jesus to earth.
    My understanding of Acts of the Apostles 2:24 is that God raised up (resurrected) Jesus from the dead:
    Acts of the Apostles 2:32 I also read that -> God raised up Jesus.
    Acts of the Apostles 3:15 God raised Jesus from the dead.
    Acts of the Apostles 5:30 God...raised up Jesus...
    Acts of the Apostles 4:10 ... whom God raised from the dead
    Acts of the Apostles 13:30,33,37 God raised Jesus from the dead
    Acts of the Apostles 17:31 God raised Jesus from the dead.
    Romans 10:9 God raised Jesus from the dead
    Romans 8:11 ... God that raised up Christ...
    Romans 4:24 ... if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead
    1 Corinthians 6:14 God has both raised up the Lord......
    1 Corinthians 15:15 God that He raised up Christ...
    2 Corinthians 4:14 God which raised up the Lord Jesus.....
    Galatians 1:1 .....God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead
    Ephesians 1:20 ... when God raised Jesus from the dead
    Colossians 2:12 God, who raised Jesus from the dead
    1 Peter 3:21-22 the resurrection of Jesus Christ who is gone to heaven and is on the 'right hand of God'....
    At Revelation 3:12 the resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.

    I can't find anything in John about God resurrecting Jesus.
    What I find in John is Jesus truthfully saying at John 10:36 he is God's Son.
    Philippians 2:5-6 Jesus was existing in God's form in the sense of being the image of God as per Hebrews 1:3.
    Image as in reflecting God's attributes or qualities such as love, justice, wisdom, mercy and power.
    Colossians 1:15 Jesus is firstborn, or as John writes at Revelation 3:14 that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. Jesus was first in heavenly creation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    In ancient Greek there was no indefinite article, simply the absence of the definite article. The definite article here is the τις of τις θεός 'the god', which also means 'God' (though the initial capital isn't used in Greek). The expression we're translating, from Philippians 2:6, is ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ / 'in form of-god'. No definite article is used (otherwise it would read ἐν μορφῇ τινός θεοῦ). So literally we get 'in form of-god' and 'in the form of a god' is at least as valid as any other translation. One possibility is that the translators have examples of Paul's usage elsewhere which justify their translation, but I'm not aware of any. Another is that theologically the idea of 'a god' who isn't Yahweh doesn't appeal to the translators, but that doesn't alter the Greek.
    To understand the point I'm making, start with Jesus' repeated and unambiguous denials that he's God, and his insistence that he's simply God's agent, deriving all his powers from God. I listed the quotes in #35 and Trailblazer added more in #46.

    Why do you not address them?
    See above. But unless you think Paul is saying Jesus is God, which he's not saying, and unless you think Jesus lied his way through those quotes, the only true God is NOT Jesus and IS Yahweh, god of the Tanakh.
    No, all that can tell you is what the author of scripture B thought of scripture A. It doesn't alter the meaning of scripture A, which continues to speak for itself. This is true of any text, and the bible is simply a body of ancient texts,written by various people at various times and places for various purposes and agendas, and there's no reason why anyone should expect consistency in such circumstances. Nor does the bible itself claim to be consistent (or inerrant, or the word of God) and if it did, that wouldn't be a credible claim anyway.
     
    #66 blü 2, Feb 2, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +480
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Similarly, the typical translation of John 1:1 is not in line with the original Greek.

    KJV
    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    The Greek
    Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

    The equivalent English
    In beginning was the word and the word was with the God and (a) god was the word
    Definite article emphasized, implied indefinite article added.

    John not only omits the definite article that would indicate God with a capital G, he reverses the order of the words in the third clause from that in the second clause, unlike the typical translation. Since ἦν indicates an equivalence, changing the order does not change the meaning. But why should John do it? Combined with the absence of a definite article, this really sounds like John is deliberately avoiding identifying the word with God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,400
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    This one is simple. Just take out the “OF”.


    OF”, by definition, is an expression between a part and a whole. There are no “parts of a whole" in Trinitarian doctrine. That’s a concept you're attempting to introduce into Trinitarian doctrine that has nothing to do with Trinitarian doctrine and as such not one Trinitarians need defend.

    As defined by Dictionary.com:
    of
    preposition

    1. expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.

    "the sleeve of his coat"

    2. expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value.

    "an increase of 5 percent"​

    Allowing “of” into the discussion would also allow you to set a measure or value to God…like 33 or 300%!

    Again, if you drop the “of” you’ll be a lot closer to Trinitarian doctrine. The Father, Son and Spirit are God, not “of” God.

    It’s not uncommon for skeptics to introduce foreign arguments into Trinitarian doctrine in order to rail against it, but you have to take the doctrine as it is., and not as we would like it to be.

    Again, the Trinity doctrine does not say “it doesn’t make sense”. It’s a mystery because we don’t understand God.

    I thought the polytheism charge was a Roman rather than Jewish criticism but I could be wrong. In any event, KenS has already shown this was no more a “4th century invention” than the bible. It’s simply another fallacious charge that was put to bed through the writing of the early church patriarchs.

    Then we are in good company. Trinitarians don't have any problem with the Trinity either.

    You want Trinitarians to engage in proof-texting? Believe me, we could fill the page. What I would like to see is a more concerted and systemic approach to reconciling "proof texts" with other scripture from our Unitarian friends.

    In any event, I recommend this thread here if you want an answer to a particular passage. As it is, I believe the OP begged us not to get too much into that.

    You missed the point...you are still paraphrasing it wrong.

    The verse tells us that Jesus, in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, not a thing that was impossible to grasp.


    No it's not. It's simply pointing out a few verses and rationale that you and our Unitarian friends can't get around.

    All (not some, partial, or a sliver) glory belongs to God. He doesn't give His glory to another. Yet here we have Jesus asking God for his glory back. The verses need to be reconciled, not dismissed.

    If I must, but it's really a very simple verse for Trinitarians to answer. Jesus is talking as a man to his Father. As a man he is subject to God. His Father is not a false God, but true God.

    Jesus is no false God either. He is also true God In Jesus's case, he lowered himself even though he "was in the form of God" and "emptied himself" to take the form of a servant. All these verses reconcile, without conflict, and without any claims of "apostasy" or "corruption" via Trinitarian doctrine. Unitarian mileage may differ.

    The OP asked us to stay away from this, and as I pointed out before, it is you who must climb the hill.

    But I want to be fair. If there is some new quote in your list that KenS, InChrist, I or other Trinitarians haven't answered effectively and scripturally before please point it out to us.

    Also, if any of our Unitarian friends have a cohesive Christology that adequately explains Christ's claims to deity, doesn't dabble in polytheism, nor has God praying to himself I'd be interested in hearing about it. The Trinity is the only doctrine I've seen that can do all that.

    It's a tough hill to climb.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Trouble is, if you do that, you don't end up with the Trinity, Instead you end up with Y + J + HG = 100% of God therefore Y, J and HG are each 33.3% of God, OR Y + J + HG = 300% of God = 3 gods.

    You can tell when you've got the real Trinity doctrine ─ the church itself tells you it's incoherent, against reason, 'a mystery in the strict sense', a nonsense. You seem to be avoiding that central piece of evidence.
    No, I'm quoting church doctrine to you. THEY admit it's a nonsense. My job is simply to get you to notice.

    Nor do I 'rail against' the Trinity doctrine. I point out that the church is right to acknowledge it's incoherent, and I make the incoherence clear. Then I add that if you take the words of Jesus seriously ─ something you're not obliged to do ─ then Jesus' words again and again declare that he's not God (#35 and #46, you recall).
    I'm afraid that's exactly what I'm saying to you. I'm not making this stuff up, but you're a Trinitarian and so far it appears you don't want either to check what I've said or take the words of Jesus seriously.
    Well, I've spelt out for you why the doctrine is incoherent. Would you please talk me through the part you say we don't 'understand'? I think it will look very like what I've already said and you've rejected.
    Where did Ken show that? I must have missed it, or I'd have responded to it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The prologue to John (1:1-18) is a strange piece of writing, with a very Greek sense of the Logos. I've wondered if it's by a different author, just as I've wondered if the last chapter, with its curious lovers' tiff scene, is by a third author. Who knows?
     
  11. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +480
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Chapter 21 is clearly by another author. The end of Chapter 20 is a perfectly good wrap, Chapter 21 throws in seeing Jesus in Galilee in an odd little scene about eating fish. This seems to be a way of tying back to both Luke and Matthew. There is also the very unsubtle denial of the 'not taste death' prophecies in the Synoptic Gospels, not sounding at all like the rest of John. But most tellingly,Chapter 21 refers to the author in the third person and apparently dead.

    The prologue connects to Philo's Logos very explicitly as does Paul's pre-existing Son of God.concept, the two terms being equivalent in Philo.This fits well with John's 'man from heaven' view of Jesus.

    See Philo's view of God - Wikipedia
     
  12. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,872
    Ratings:
    +5,106
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    You must have missed it

    That darned trinity.

    Can I assume, then, that you haven't accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior?
     
  13. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The allegation is that you produced evidence for the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity (implicitly, in the form we're talking about) earlier than the 4th century.

    Is that correct?

    If it is, where may I see this demonstration?
    Yeah, incoherence is so irritating, don't you find?
    If you wish.
     
  14. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,872
    Ratings:
    +5,106
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Ignoring facts is a beautiful way to support your position. :D
     
  15. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    To which facts are you referring?

    Is it your position that the statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels don't count as facts?

    And is it a fact that you produced evidence for the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity (implicitly, in the form we're talking about) earlier than the 4th century?

    And if so, where may I see this evidence?
     
  16. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,872
    Ratings:
    +5,106
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Besides Isaiah, way before the 4th century; the Gospels and the writings of Paul, way before the 4th century; besides the list I gave you, way before the 4th century; let me add a couple of more:

    216: Tertullian
    And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. —


    220: Hippolytus of Rome

    The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.

    Remeber, the 4th century only RATIFIED what was the belief from centuries before.

    Now, these were readily available on the internet. IF, you were really interested to learn or be chanllenged, wouldn't you have found it yourself? In that you didn't, what can one interpret from that fact?

    Do you believe that Jesus paid the price for sin on the Cross so that mankind could be one again with The Father?
     
    #76 KenS, Feb 3, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,400
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    There you go again with that “OF”! We are not comparing parts of a whole. :)

    Whose church? Is this a Unitarian church?

    My church doesn’t tell me it’s incoherent. Neither does it tell me it’s “against” reason. It does tell me it’s “above” reason and I would expect it to because it aligns squarely with scripture (Isaiah 55:8-9) rather than skeptic philosophy.

    Absolutely! I wouldn’t worship a God who wasn’t a mystery because even the briefest perusal of scripture tells us He is.

    I have a feeling “a nonsense” are your words and not the words of the church…an attempted interjection of foreign concepts into Trinity doctrine like “Of” was previously.

    Well if I was I’ve just addressed it. As for your verses (45 & 46), we can get into a bit of Proof-texting but the OP requested we stay away from it. There’s an avalanche of “proof-texts” I can cut and paste here and once I’ve answered yours I would request you answer mine.

    Believe me, there will be plenty of threads where we can do that :)

    Whose church? And what name from this church spoke forth for all Trinitarians? Was it an early patriarch, authoritatively recognized by traditional Christian churches?

    I’m not aware of too many churches who claim their doctrines are nonsense. If there were, I’m pretty sure they would have garnered a lot of public notice and attention.

    It’s an interesting concept though. I suppose there are those willing to fill a church to the brim if the pastor promised to spout nothing but nonsense. Finally, we could bring the skeptics into the church with a doctrine they could believe in!

    C'mon Blü, let's not confuse your point of view with that of "the church". :rolleyes:

    Okay,let's take a walk then. I have no objection to it and enjoy your feedback. :)

    It's the part about God…you seem to desire a God you understand and a doctrine that comprehends that God. Man cannot possibly comprehend God or develop a doctrine that does…scripture makes that clear. The Trinity doctrine makes no attempt to comprehend God. It apprehends rather than comprehends.

    “Apprehends” means we take into custody or grasp mentally. “Comprehends” means not only to grasp mentally but to “understand fully”. There is a distinct theological difference, and no more so than between the Christian theology handed through the Word and the pagan concepts of God we as mankind have developed over the ages.

    The Trinity doctrine is fully able to “apprehend” without conflicting with other scripture. Unlike Unitarianism, there is no need to jump into polytheism to reconcile scripture with a bunch of minor, junior or senior level Gods, semi-Gods, or McGods. Unlike Tritheism we have not three but one Triune God. And unlike Oneness Pentecostalism we don’t have God praying or talking to Himself (Modalism)

    Neither do Trinitarians find a need to undermine their own bible by attacking one or two of the apostles, creating vast world-wide, and trace less conspiracies, or claiming the entire church went “apostate” sometime in the past, forcing the head (Jesus) to detach, leave, or search for a new body.

    Lastly, and what I find most liberating, I don’t have to misstate or restate Trinitarian beliefs as polytheism, Tritheism, or Modalism in order to argue against it, which is something I certainly feel our Unitarian friends are compelled to do.

    It’s also liberating in the sense it leaves Trinitarians free to defend the Word of God against skeptics who doubt scriptural veracity and atheists who believe it has no veracity at all. It is here that our Unitarian friends find common ground with the skeptics, because they, as a general rule, embrace some underlying theological doctrine that espouses scripture has been “corrupted” or in need of “restoration”.

    IMO, skeptics and Christian Unitarians make strange bedfellows but the proof is all over this thread/forum to see. If there is an attack on scriptural veracity, most of the Christian Unitarians (and this includes JW’s) are all too willing to pick up an axe and join in on the demolition. I find it’s the Trinitarians most likely to uphold or defend scripture.

    I was going to point but noticed Ken's beat me to the punch (as usual), and as he's stated previously there are many more examples.
     
  18. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,400
    Ratings:
    +425
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think this retires and puts to bed any belief that the Trinity was a "4th Century Invention".
     
  19. KenS

    KenS Face to face with my Father
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,872
    Ratings:
    +5,106
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    This was OUTSTANDING!
     
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,456
    Ratings:
    +5,966
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The god of the Tanakh is not triune. Paul never says Jesus is God, but is Lord to Yahweh the God.
    Tertullian denies the distinctness of the three persons, He says they are each manifestations of the one god, not each distinct and 100% of god as the Trinity doctrine says. I've already pointed out that if it makes sense, it can't be a 'mystery in the true sense' so it can't be the Trinity doctrine.
    This also fails the mystery test and is not Trinitarianism. This says that Jesus and HG are creations of the Father, and get their divinity because of the Father, not in their own right. Jesus repeatedly says the same thing, for example:

    John 5:19the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

    John 5:30I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

    John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me

    John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

    John 10:29My Father [...] is greater than all”.

    John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”​

    No, as I said, the Trinity doctrine, the 'mystery in the true sense', doesn't exist till the 4th century.

    With due respect to you and to Oeste, you don't seem to understand your own doctrine, or else you'd know why (in the church's eyes) it's necessary to call it a 'mystery in the true sense'.
     
    #80 blü 2, Feb 3, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2018
Loading...