• 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!

Trinitarian Arguments

firedragon

Veteran Member
It's an attempt to mesh the scriptural words of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but whether the Trinitarian concept does this correctly obviously is highly conjectural, much as it was when it was formulated during the fourth century. Notes from these sessions showed that there was plenty of arguing and dissention, much like there was when the Christian canon was selected. Thus my opinion being "Whatever it was, it was" [or something like that]. I don't know and, frankly, I don't lose even one nod of sleep over this.

Ah I see. I thought you were interested.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Family. Father and Son are one family. Just like in a human family. The husband and wife are separate people but make up one family. Why can't people see that two separate spirit beings can also be one family. The Father is not the Son but together they are one family. And the important thing is that God is not limited to two or three persons. God is adopting more persons into his family. When you limit God to three persons you are denying people their opportunity to join that family. God can be thousands or millions of persons. Not just two or three.

What about Ephraim? Is he also part of the family? In fact if its a family, Ephraim should be the elder brother of Jesus the messiah.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Thank you for this.

It's an attempt to mesh the scriptural words of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but whether the Trinitarian concept does this correctly obviously is highly conjectural, much as it was when it was formulated during the fourth century. Notes from these sessions showed that there was plenty of arguing and dissention, much like there was when the Christian canon was selected. Thus my opinion being "Whatever it was, it was" [or something like that]. I don't know and, frankly, I don't lose even one nod of sleep over this.

Back at ya!
Your reaction, demonstrates who is childish, I have never spoken to anyone who blows up over little things that are said , and take such great offense as you have repeatedly done on these threads.

You behave as though your belief, or lack of it, is like your little rubber ducky, you play with in the bathroom, so that if anyone says anything whether it be their opinion, or not, you respond by attacking them, instead of either supporting or representing your belief against what they say. It's like no one can say anything that is not in agreement with what you think they should say regarding faith.

The thing I find amazing, is that you already admitted that you behave that way sometimes, because of your prejudice, yet you never seem to want to correct that. You just repeat it, as though it's something good to have.

You don't see JWs attacking people, when negative things are said about them, or their faith. The persons express their opinion, and how they feel, We address the subject.

I hope you do get that sorted out, because it comes over to me like a deep seated hatred for nPeace.
Peace out.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Your reaction, demonstrates who is childish, I have never spoken to anyone who blows up over little things that are said , and take such great offense as you have repeatedly done on these threads.

You behave as though your belief, or lack of it, is like your little rubber ducky, you play with in the bathroom, so that if anyone says anything whether it be their opinion, or not, you respond by attacking them, instead of either supporting or representing your belief against what they say. It's like no one can say anything that is not in agreement with what you think they should say regarding faith.

The thing I find amazing, is that you already admitted that you behave that way sometimes, because of your prejudice, yet you never seem to want to correct that. You just repeat it, as though it's something good to have.

You don't see JWs attacking people, when negative things are said about them, or their faith. The persons express their opinion, and how they feel, We address the subject.

I hope you do get that sorted out, because it comes over to me like a deep seated hatred for nPeace.
Peace out.
Metis is like that. I am on an ignore list because I did not agree with something he said.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You don't see JWs attacking people, when negative things are said about them, or their faith.
Oh, you mean like judging others here and then bearing false witness against them like some other JW's have done here in plain view?

Lying is lying, and do you really expect me to call it anything else? When even shown that some JW's here have lied about what we supposedly believe in while they strut around judging others, are we supposedly to ignore that and call it something other than "lies"?

Contrary to what you have claimed, I have not attacked others here in a ad hominem manner but I have attacked their dishonest statements at times by calling them out and questioning why they would repeatedly lie about what we actually believe and teach. It is very frustrating to spend the time posting facts from authentic sources and then to have one or more JW's virtually ignore the correction and post the same lies over and over again.

I hope you do get that sorted out, because it comes over to me like a deep seated hatred for nPeace.
Peace out.
Again, that's nothing less than a disingenuous fabrication. I don't hate anyone but I do hate the actions of some people when they do just you just did above. Thus, you have inadvertently proved my point.

So I guess we're done.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Metis is like that. I am on an ignore list because I did not agree with something he said.
Then I guess you'll have a hard time explaining this post.

Most of the time when I put someone on ignore is when I feel the debate may be getting too intense whereas I may overreact which, granted, I sometimes have done. And so that they know they're on my ignore list I'll p.m. them and say why I did as such. But in only rare cases do I leave someone on ignore for more than just a few days or maybe as long as a couple of weeks, and it's never for the reason you say but usually for nasty comments, especially ad hominem attacks. You haven't been on my list for many weeks now-- probably months.

So, you statement "Metis is like that" is an ad hominem in and of itself because it stereotypes the person, in this case me. Thus, you have inadvertently shown why I sometimes have put someone on ignore.

And, btw, I currently have no one on my ignore list.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Then I guess you'll have a hard time explaining this post.

Most of the time when I put someone on ignore is when I feel the debate may be getting too intense whereas I may overreact which, granted, I sometimes have done. And so that they know they're on my ignore list I'll p.m. them and say why I did as such. But in only rare cases do I leave someone on ignore for more than just a few days or maybe as long as a couple of weeks, and it's never for the reason you say but usually for nasty comments, especially ad hominem attacks. You haven't been on my list for many weeks now-- probably months.

So, you statement "Metis is like that" is an ad hominem in and of itself because it stereotypes the person, in this case me. Thus, you have inadvertently shown why I sometimes have put someone on ignore.

And, btw, I currently have no one on my ignore list.
Thank you for the explanation. We all get a little carried away sometimes, even myself. I hope we can continue to discuss things in an adult manner. By the way, my computer still shows me as being on the ignore list. Is there a way I can erase that?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
All three are one- tri nity means three in one/group of three). Three: creator, son, spirit. One cause and one purpose. Three different natures. Three roles.

They're not each other. It just means they are in one accord. Trinity not unity.

Trinitarians focus on unity between all three. Non trinitarians focus on their individualities working together.
How is what you're describing different from Tritheism (which is not Trinitarianism)?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You don't see JWs attacking people, when negative things are said about them, or their faith.
Actually, I've seen this a number of times.

It's usually when someone points out the harm caused by their policies on blood transfusions or reporting child sexual abuse to the police (i.e. how they're opposed to both).
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thank you for the explanation. We all get a little carried away sometimes, even myself. I hope we can continue to discuss things in an adult manner. By the way, my computer still shows me as being on the ignore list. Is there a way I can erase that?
I ain't that tech savvy, so I can't help you there.

Take care, and thanks so much for your cordial response.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
How is what you're describing different from Tritheism (which is not Trinitarianism)?

It's grammar. Tri-nity, un-nity.

Theism has to deal with god. Trinity just describes the combination (or state of) of three things: father, son, holy spirit in this example. In itself, grammatically, it's not an religious word.

Like virgin vs virginity.

As nouns the difference between virginity and virgin is that virginity is the state of being a virgin while virgin is a person who has never had sexual intercourse, or sometimes, one who has never engaged in any sexual activity at all..

So you can say to protestants, father, son, holy spirit is a unity. On catholicism (which I think the word cones from), it's not a unity. Mass shows their relationship rather their nature as one another.

It's speaking of the nature of three things.

Another example

Trinity sentence examples. The Trinity--the three elements of matter--are sulphur, mercury, and salt. It seems clear that the trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea in the old Babylonian religion has its counterpart in the Mandaean Pira, Ayar, and Mana rabba.


The three parts, each concentrating on a single aspect of his interpretative trinity, pose major organisational problems : repetition is hard to avoid, as is a measure of apparent internal contradiction.

Some people are against god, son, spirit bring three as one. Their nature has no comparison. It's not a unity, they translate. Pro-trinitatians use tri/unity but I think unity is a better word since there is only one god they believe not three.

semantics
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Do you believe Jesus taught what he did for nothing? Three and a half years of teaching people the truth
Not nothing, but less than a dollar's worth, perhaps. You'd think God could pencil in a counselling session longer than that. It's not like He doesn't have lots of free time in eternity.

Choosing personally and personally teaching and training a selected group to carry out his ministry, and leaving them to carry on in making more disciples when he left
These are the same people he complained didn't understand him?

Do you think that Jesus left the earth and forgot what he promised
God needs reminders of promises (see "rainbow" at the very least). Why not Jesus?

He did not go there and forget his work - which he started, and left in the hands of his faithful followers.
"If you want things done right, you need to do it yourself." :)

I'm not sure, but would you ask Paul, or Barnabas, or Timothy, "Do you have the correct interpretation of scripture and every other christian does not?"
Paul: A Christian?

1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.
But the apostles can also be them.

 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.
Ah, those who follow Falwell Jr, then, LOL.

Yes. demons teach as well, and how would you know if you are being taught by demons?
How do they know? We went from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to "just believe in some pat phrases and you'll be fine for all eternity".

It is not about interpretation, but it is about identifying the Christian congregation which Jesus Christ - the head, directs.
None of them?

Do you believe Jesus is over all the different "Christian" denominations around the world? If you do, what scriptural basis, do you have for believing such?
"The eye cannot say to the hand it isn't needed." (Of course, you can live perfectly WITHOUT an eye or a hand, but whatever.)
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Do you believe Jesus taught what he did for nothing? Three and a half years of teaching people the truth
Not nothing, but less than a dollar's worth, perhaps. You'd think God could pencil in a counselling session longer than that. It's not like He doesn't have lots of free time in eternity.

Choosing personally and personally teaching and training a selected group to carry out his ministry, and leaving them to carry on in making more disciples when he left
These are the same people he complained didn't understand him?

Do you think that Jesus left the earth and forgot what he promised
God needs reminders of promises (see "rainbow" at the very least). Why not Jesus?

He did not go there and forget his work - which he started, and left in the hands of his faithful followers.
"If you want things done right, you need to do it yourself." :)

I'm not sure, but would you ask Paul, or Barnabas, or Timothy, "Do you have the correct interpretation of scripture and every other christian does not?"
Paul: A Christian?

1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.
But the apostles can also be them.

 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.
Ah, those who follow Falwell Jr, then, LOL.

Yes. demons teach as well, and how would you know if you are being taught by demons?
How do they know? We went from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to "just believe in some pat phrases and you'll be fine for all eternity".

It is not about interpretation, but it is about identifying the Christian congregation which Jesus Christ - the head, directs.
None of them?

Do you believe Jesus is over all the different "Christian" denominations around the world? If you do, what scriptural basis, do you have for believing such?
"The eye cannot say to the hand it isn't needed." (Of course, you can live perfectly WITHOUT an eye or a hand, but whatever.)
 
Top