there you go with your hyperliteralism. If you proved anything, my view would have changed.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
Historical facts aren't normally called hyperliteralism. Why do you evade the reality of your organizations origins? Intellectual honesty is important.
So the origin of the Church with Christ seems to be a problem for you. That is my organization. I indeed accept him in his divinity and glory in the Godhead. So I am not sure why you find things wrong with Christ Jesus.
Runningman
Active Member
Trinitarianism wasn't formalized until the 4th century. Jesus' church was formalized in the early 1st century. They didn't believe the same sort of things that you all do. There weren't any who could be possibly recognized as an "orthodox trinitarian" for the next several hundred years, as the early proto-trinitarians would be considered raging heretics by your standards today.
The majority believed that Jesus was subordinate to God, yet still God, which doesn't make sense and was a fast way to lose a public debate and destroy their credibility way back when. Trinitarianism arose over centuries of debates. You all are still developing your religion in the modern day, which is why you guys are still defending your three headed god found no where in the Bible.
There is actually a movement to repackage and rebrand trinitarianism as a result. It still doesn't make much sense, but it's a step in the right direction.
Wow. you call those who recognized the divinity in the first and second centuries as raging heretics -- or raving heretics. Well it is realized that outsiders see those who follow Christ as raving mad. So I could see sharing your view as an outsider
That issue of subordination was a stumbling block to those who do not know the divinity of Christ.
Sure. The Church was weeding out heretics -- keeping them from confessing to be Christians by pretending they followed the true Christ.
It makes sense. There is more to know about God than one could imagine -- except for unitarians who make a god in their own image.
You are very disrespectful to God here.
wow. you looked at some history of the deeper development of the Trinitarian doctrine. If you realized the history in full, you would realize that the developments were to expose heresies like Arianism.
Now you go blasphemous by speaking of this three-headness. Is their no moral sense left it you?
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
Good, I am glad you seem to agree that your religion wasn't developed until later. That's my point. Since you seem to understand that now, the Scriptures don't describe God as a trinity, but rather as a single individual person, a word used for convenience.
There is no such thing as blasphemy when it comes to non-existent gods. Zeus, Hermes, the Trinity, and the list goes on. Actually, the development of the trinity started when Christianity finally hit polytheistic pagan nations. Trinitarianism helped unite the Roman empire in the 4th century which was good for politics, but not good for Christianity, despite the Roman empire falling about 100 years later.
Now you have become an atheist. It is amazing to see your rejection increase.
Runningman
Active Member
I'm not an atheist. I believe in God the Father, the one and only true God, as the Bible states.
you just rejected the God of scripture and now you say you accept God. doublemindedness is evident. If you followed scripture you would recognize God the Father matches correctly with God the Son.
Runningman
Active Member
There is no trinity in the scripture to have the opportunity to reject. Scriptures defines God as the Father, God defines Himself as the Father. God isn't more than one person.
If you don't have the same God as Jesus and define God the way he does you're wrong and in idolatry.
John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”
I guess you still have no argument against the divinity of Christ since you repeat the same points that have been refuted -- at least refuted as to the spin you give to them
Remember what God said to the crowd:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Runningman
Active Member
You lacking evidence is a strike against any arguments you may make. Please go ahead and post your Bible verses if you can find any.
Runningman
Active Member
What about it? I assume you think that if someone speaks what God said in the first person perspective you think it means they are claiming to be God. That is a false argument.
Hosea also did it without saying "thus says the Lord" or "this is what the Lord says" but no one thinks Hosea is God.
Hosea 11
8How could I give you up, O Ephraim?
How could I surrender you, O Israel?
How could I make you like Admah?
How could I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart is turned within Me;
My compassion is stirred!
9I will not execute the full fury of My anger;
I will not destroy Ephraim again.
For I am God and not man—
the Holy One among you—
and I will not come in wrath.
Proof texting at its best. Are you expecting God to be coming as a man among them? No he did not come as a man among them at that time, so he is not denying the incarnation in the future. It is too obvious here that the point being made is that God is not going to change his mind as a man might do here. God is assuring Israel that he would not go further in destruction of them.
You show the absurdity of your interpretation and, more likely, failure to even do any exegesis.
Remember what God said to the crowd:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Runningman
Active Member
I am just using your same exact argument. People said things God said in first person perspective just like Jesus did. Apparently you don't realize that quoting Scripture or being God's messenger doesn't mean someone is God.
Runningman
Active Member
God didn't say that to the crowd.
I expected your answer to be like this. I figured you would deny the history of God interacting with the people of Israel.
