The early church fathers were important to us for four reasons:

[e v e]

No it’s One Being and 3 Persons or 3 Divine Persons who are One Being.

in a sense that is correct since they are one as to their Nature and desires.

But it's not necessary imo to deny each is a being and has his or her own attributes, such as His feminine Spirit, ruach.

 

[e v e]

the fact his spirit is feminine does throw a wrench in the rcc (gay) trinity.

 

[Diserner]

this heavens and earth are not His..

This is not Biblical.

 

[Matthias]

No it’s One Being and 3 Persons or 3 Divine Persons who are One Being.

She expressed her belief in three beings who are three deities. My response was intentionally limited to deal with the two categories she presented: Beings and deities.

Three beings - > one being
Three deities -> one deity

 

[e v e]

Thanks. I think that with that clarification I understand what you believe.

lol. thanks for letting me know.

 

[e v e]

This is not Biblical.

yes it is but you and I would need to clarify why I say that.

 

[Diserner]

the fact his spirit is feminine does throw a wrench in the rcc (gay) trinity.

Lol, that's a new one for me.

 

[e v e]

She expressed her belief in three beings who are three deities. My response was intentionally limited to deal with the two categories she presented: Beings and deities.

Three beings - > one being
Three deities -> one deity

i think it is that their nature is deity.
each is a being of the Godhead.
man is created male and female in the image of His son and His Spirit
(the image of God)
whose attributes are as male and female.

 

[Matthias]

And he says SOME things better than even many modern Trinitarians:

"In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance — in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it."


BOOM!

Landmine!

I may never recover.

Later theologians borrowed what they liked and found useful in Tertullian’s writings and threw away the rest.

 

[Diserner]

yes it is but you and I would need to clarify why I say that.

To Yahweh, belongeth, The earth and the fulness thereof, The world, and they who dwell therein; (Ps. 24:1 ROT)

15 Blessed are ye of Yahweh, who made the heavens and the earth:
16 As for the heavens, the heavens, belong to Yahweh, and the earth, hath he given to the sons of men. (Ps. 115:15-16)

 

[Diserner]

Later theologians borrowed what they liked and found useful in Tertullian’s writings and threw away the rest.

Retroactively fitting the narrative how you want is cognitive bias.

 

[e v e]

it's a very loose trinity
under which is His actual family
with the 12 tribes of Him represented by His son Christ
... and those of Christ out of
jacob,
being the 144k

 

[e v e]

To Yahweh, belongeth, The earth and the fulness thereof, The world, and they who dwell therein; (Ps. 24:1 ROT)

15 Blessed are ye of Yahweh, who made the heavens and the earth:
16 As for the heavens, the heavens, belong to Yahweh, and the earth, hath he given to the sons of men. (Ps. 115:15-16)

but land and atmosphere described there is not this earth and sky . so not this current heavens and earth resulting from the fall.

 

[e v e]

Retroactively fitting the narrative how you want is cognitive bias.

i'm not convinced tertullian was okay.... i would need to read more. however some of what he says may be okay.

 

[Matthias]

Retroactively fitting the narrative how you want is cognitive bias.

Later theologians and trinitarian scholars themselves tell us that that is what they did!

 

[Diserner]

She expressed her belief in three beings who are three deities. My response was intentionally limited to deal with the two categories she presented: Beings and deities.

Three beings - > one being
Three deities -> one deity

You may have already figured this out, but I want it to be very clear.

This is NOT meant as an insult in ANY way but a logical statement of doctrine:

I do not consider that poster's view within the realm of orthodoxy in case you think you are interacting with a "Trinitarian."

I encourage this link to be intelligently studied:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/what-really-is-gnosticism.234/

 

[e v e]

I edited this post slightly.

it's a very loose trinity
under which is His actual family
with the 12 tribes of Him represented by the son Christ
... and those of Christ out of
jacob,
being the 144k

 

[e v e]

You may have already figured this out, but I want it to be very clear.

This is NOT meant as an insult in ANY way but a logical statement of doctrine:

I do not consider that poster's view within the realm of orthodoxy in case you think you are interacting with a "Trinitarian."

I encourage this link to be intelligently studied:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/what-really-is-gnosticism.234/

true

i am definitely not within mainstream orthodoxy. thank God!!!

false, i'm not gnostic.

cheers

 

[Matthias]

You may have already figured this out, but I want it to be very clear.

This is NOT meant as an insult in ANY way but a logical statement of doctrine:

I do not consider that poster's view within the realm of orthodoxy in case you think you are interacting with a "Trinitarian."

I encourage this link to be intelligently studied:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/what-really-is-gnosticism.234/

Thanks. I wasn’t thinking that I was interacting with a trinitarian when I was having a conversation with her. A very pleasant conversation, I should add.

 

[e v e]

Thanks. I wasn’t thinking that I was interacting with a trinitarian when I was having a conversation with her.

Im already aware none of you here agree. I've left this here for others, for during the tribulation soon, when left behind believers will understand.