Runningman
Active Member
That's what you're doing. I am going with the provided rules, you are changing the rules so that you can win.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Oops. So you are saying that God has restricted discussions to the Unitarian's Pocket Dictionary? Show me the passages that say that. Your response again is like the kid who makes up new rules and doubles down on that claim when challenged.
Runningman
Active Member
You are free to describe God they way He and the prophets represented Him, which is one person called the Father, and not as anyone else. It's as simple as that. God never said He is three persons nor anyone else. Don't put words in their mouth and represent God incorrectly. It's no small matter to accuse God of being who He never said He is.
There you go again... trying to bias the discussion against the broad testimony of scripture.
Runningman
Active Member
I find it unbelievable you would try to deter me from describing God the way God and the others did. I am pretty sure God is smart enough to provide the information about who He is and would never intentionally lead people into bearing false witness about Him. I am going with God being one person as everyone said in the broad testimony of Scripture.
Peterlag
Active Member
God does restrict what words we use to talk about Scripture. I have seen it written in both the Old and New Testament that we are not to add or subtract from the Word. Here's an example...
Terms found nowhere in Scripture...
- Deity
- Co-equal
- Co-eternal
- Incarnated
- Eternal son
- Infinite son
- God the son
- One substance
- Persons of God
- God became man
- Eternally begotten
- Pre-existent Christ
- God the Holy Spirit
- Pre-incarnate Christ
- Three persons, three in one
- Trinity, Triune God, tri-unity
- Two nature's, Hypostatic union
cc: @Runningman
Runningman
Active Member
On the matter of respect alone, one should use the vocabulary God and the apostles did to represent God. One would only add to or take away from their language if they had an ulterior motive to introduce ideas that they never introduced. They were consistent and uniform about the only true God being the Father so it's important to not alter their words so that their testimony can be preserved. Trinitarians simply refuse to do this.
Peterlag
Active Member
They use Scripture that is so twised that it does not fit with the rest of the Bible and they are fine with that. Something wrong some place.
haha. So you deny scriptures by restricting vocabulary. The Schoenheits restrict determinations from scripture apart from what they like. That is cultish behavior, not scriptural discussion.
We see God becoming a man in John 1. The Word became flesh. That is Jesus. To deny that is horrible and a rejection of the testimony of scripture. Keep it up and avoid following God.
Also, Revelation has a requirement not to alter the words and message of it but there is nothing said against summing up the testimony of scripture. Again you try to manipulate the discussion away from honest discussion.
haha. I do not know how you miss the scriptures that have shared so many times. But if the Schoenheits can come up with a convincing argument to deny the Triune God, go ahead and share a convincing argument. don't just control the language and say it is a fair discussion. I'm waiting to see if there is a reason to change from standard recognition of the Triune God to a novel view of him.
Peterlag
Active Member
Here's one I just wrote that was also taught to Schoenheit since we are both from the same school...
In biblical research and in any other reasonable study. If we have 10 clear verses on a subject and 1 verse that does not fit with the other 10 verses on the same subject. We are not to disregard the 10 clear verses and hold on to the 1 verse and then say we have proof that the 1 verse is well documented. Baptizing in the name of the father, son, and spirit is not taught or practiced anywhere in the book of Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. Nobody carried out such a request that Trinitarians say came from Jesus. So even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were originally written by the Apostles. It still does not fit with the rest of the Bible because we are immersed in the spirit when we are born again. We get that spirit by confessing the Lord Jesus, and believing that God raised him from the dead. Thus we are immersed in his name.
Peterlag
Active Member
Martin Luther did the same thing to the Catholics that I do to you. He would not allow the Catholics to use words that were not in the Bible. You like the Catholics use them anyway and then call us heretics for calling you out on it.
Runningman
Active Member
They perform eisegesis with a lot of different doctrines, not only the trinity, but the trinity is the prime reason. They also say the human soul is inherently immortal because they needed Jesus to survive his physical death since they claim he is God and God can't die. However, contrary to that claim, they open up an even bigger can of worms since it contradicts the very gospel that is a requirement for eternal life in the first place.
Essentially, trinitarians teach everyone is immortal in one way or another and that Jesus isn't the only way to immortality. @mikesw @Victoria
Peterlag
Active Member
Even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were originally written by the Apostles. It still does not fit with the rest of the Bible because we are immersed in the spirit when we are born again. We get that spirit by confessing the Lord Jesus, and believing that God raised him from the dead. Thus we are immersed in his name.
dwight92070
Active Member
You've given this same lame argument before, and it was just as useless then as it is now. There are many words that are NOT in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that the concept that they describe is not found in the Bible.
Terms not found nowhere in Scripture ...
omnipotence
omniscience
omnipresence
sovereign
dispensation
trinity
lose your salvation
rapture
Yes, you might find "dispensation" and "sovereign" in the King James Bible, but not in the original Greek.
Last edited:
It definitely sounds like the teachings are messed up there. That is indeed against any proper exegetical principle. That is akin to a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence. The true principle for scripture is that the passages have to be resolved with proper balance. The one verse has to be resolved with the ten in the most reasonable way while treat both as true messages. I see plenty of other examples were even scholars try to dismiss verses because they do not fit their mode of interpretation. The idea is pure manipulation of scripture.
oh my! did you just say those words??? hahah.
Thanks for sharing those to expose the Schoenheit errors.
the problem is that you seem to have the wrong spirit -- whatever that spirit is that you speak of.
dwight92070
Active Member
"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." Matthew 23:37
Did you notice how Jesus equates Himself with God here? How often I wanted ...
We might as well kill two birds with one stone here.
Did you notice that Jesus acknowledged that the Jews had free will here? ... "and you were unwilling."
Did you notice how Jesus equates Himself with God here? How often I wanted ...
We might as well kill two birds with one stone here.
Did you notice that Jesus acknowledged that the Jews had free will here? ... "and you were unwilling."
Last edited:
101G
Active Member
You're alright, 101G... you're alright
Even up the score
Victoria will reason w/ 101G. Although 101G has an unorthodox view of the Godhead, at least Victoria, & 101G, can both agree that Jesus Christ is God, eh? We cannot afford to get that one wrong.
I never knew what modalism was until I joined the forum
Good, as the scripture states, Isaiah 1:18a "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:" an unorthodox view of the Godhead... GREAT, Good, ok, let's see the Godhead plainly. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" two words of interest. A. Form and B. With
A. "form", G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
definition #2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature. and the nature of God is Spirit, John 4:24a "God is a Spirit". and the base of form that identifies the Lord Jesus NATURE is the root of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') which is G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n. 1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).
and another word that is synonyms with portion is "Share" just as Philippians 2:6 clearly states, "EQUAL SHARE" of, of himself. this word portion the synonyms for "share can be found at, Word Hippo https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/portion.html under the heading, Noun, A part of a whole.
B. the term, "with", as Philippians 2:6b says, "to be equal with God:" this is easily revealed in the OT as well as the NT. first the OT, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." I, I, I, I am he..... I is a single person designation, correct..... and the first is with the Last.... now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." ... I also? yes, the term ALSO means, "in addition; too". BINGO, there is our answer. in addition to being the "First" he is also the "Last" the same one person in a plurality, or the EQUAL SHARE of himself, in an ECHAD of First and Last in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK.
ECHAD: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
2. (as an ordinal) first. there is our answer. he is .... "ALSO" .... the LAST... same ONE PERSON.... got it?.
and lastly "I never knew what modalism was until I joined the forum
" (smile), 101G neither, Glad 101G is a "Diversified Oneness"..... 
thanks for being ......."REASONABLE".....
101G.
