The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[amazing grace]

All of your commentary essentially boils down to your opinion, interpretation, meaning it isn't scripture, though you try to pass it off as Scripture. The mistake you make, along with Grace, is that you project your beliefs and opinions into the Bible and present them as arguments rather than letting the Bible represent itself. What I want to do with you, when or if you are ready, is have a debate with me where you are only allowed to use the vocabulary, phrases, and terminology the Bible uses. I can do this, can you?

Is that a referring to me? Please tell me where I am 'projecting my beliefs and opinions into the Bible'? I don't believe the word was the second member of the Trinity nor do I believe the word is God as in equality only qualitatively which is within the Greek grammar of John 1:1c.

But please do tell me where I am in error and out of bounds with scripture. Thanks.

 

[Doug Brents]

So we have 1 John 1:1-3 that plainly describes the Word with impersonal pronouns, meaning that John knew that the Word is actually a thing.

Are you still stuck on this stupidity? We use impersonal pronouns for people all the time, as I tried to demonstrate to you in the last post. Get over it.

In literature, devices like personification can be used and we know that the Bible is full of such literary devices.

For example, throughout the Old Testament, there is no mention of a Word who is a He, Him, His, etc but there is mention of God's words being personified. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy.

The way exegesis works is we form our conclusions based precedent of what is written before, not things that are never mentioned. So understanding John 1:1-14 around 1 John 1:1-3 is a good way to understand what the Word is. The Word is actually a thing, not God, not a god, but even personal at all, but qualitive because the "Word is God" in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative, meaning that the translation you have provided is false.

John was written before 1 John. So John sets the precedent over 1 John. The Word is God. And He is not a "thing"; He is the Creator of the universe, the maker of everything that is, whether seen or unseen; He is the Light of the World, and the Life; it is He who breathed into us our living spirit. And the Word is Jesus Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Is that a referring to me? Please tell me where I am 'projecting my beliefs and opinions into the Bible'? I don't believe the word was the second member of the Trinity nor do I believe the word is God as in equality only qualitatively which is within the Greek grammar of John 1:1c.

But please do tell me where I am in error and out of bounds with scripture. Thanks.

@Grace ambassador not you. You're doing a good job. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

 

[Runningman]

Are you still stuck on this stupidity? We use impersonal pronouns for people all the time, as I tried to demonstrate to you in the last post. Get over it.

John was written before 1 John. So John sets the precedent over 1 John. The Word is God. And He is not a "thing"; He is the Creator of the universe, the maker of everything that is, whether seen or unseen; He is the Light of the World, and the Life; it is He who breathed into us our living spirit. And the Word is Jesus Christ.

We have the Old Testament that is older than John 1. So using your reasoning, since the Word is not God anywhere in the Old Testament, but rather is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11) then there is better exegetical foundation and precedent that the Word is not literally God. John 1 is partially a poem, which is another thing many trinitarian theologians agree with, meaning that it isn't needed to be interpreted as literal. It also contradicts Scripture using your interpretation, we know that the Father alone is the one and only true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6) so any interpretations or translations that state something contrary are automatically a red flag and false.

 

[e v e]

So anyone who is a son or daughter of God is also God or just the one you cherry picked? I don't think people should be able to have their cake and eat it too in this case.

the word deity refers to a nature

The word God refers only to God

 

[e v e]

like here, we are currently in animal nature , fallen type of nature and perishable body

but in eden we will have been restored to our eden nature which has God's signature

 

[e v e]

all the nature made by God in eden has His signature

deity refers to a type... God is the source of His own nature and everything He does has his signature and nature upon it. God is God and his nature is deity and deity also refers to His sons and daughters, which does not mean they are God but only refers to their nature as actual sons and daughters : because we will be restored to Him. Which is why the sons can rule with Christ... we are not creatures though our bodies are animal nature atm. and at the moment we are also not restored to our glorified resurrection body... and are a mixed nature because of adam's crime against God and us. Actual humans are born of humans here. Actual children of God once returned to eden, which is the purpose of Christ incarnating and is the covenant, are of His nature. We were robbed of our birthright by satan and are now in animal flesh. (which, animals are creatures). as souls of Him we are Not creatures. gross.

such as could be here there are types - deer , rabbit, etc ., but all here does and is fallen nature regardless of type. deity is a type of nature.

There is satanic nature and there is eden nature.

 

[e v e]

every reference to His spirit in the OT has a feminine gender. ruach, feminine pronoun, etc.

 

[e v e]

I know this isn't addressed to me but I had to respond ---- so feel free to just read it and roll along - no response needed!

Well, I don't know about you but as for ME, THIS HUMAN - I am not fully human AND fully God --- I actually know of no human being that can qualify for being fully human AND fully God so apparently since you claim that Jesus is fully human AND fully God then he is nothing like us in every way and scripture is wrong??????

human in eden context as an imperishable glorified body and soul who is an actual son or daughter of Him is not the same context as human in a flesh body that dies.

 

[Runningman]

the word deity refers to a nature

The word God refers only to God

We can have the divine nature and God with a capitol G is the Father only?

 

[amazing grace]

human in eden context as an imperishable glorified body and soul who is an actual son or daughter of Him is not the same context as human in a flesh body that dies.

"Human" in 'Eden context' was two human beings just as you are a human being and I am a human being. They were mortal. They were not glorified. Yes, Adam was called 'the Son of God'.

Yes, they were created with the intent that they live forever with one condition, that they NOT eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed - sin and death through sin entered the world.

 

[e v e]

We can have the divine nature and God with a capitol G is the Father only?

what is your understnding of these terms

genera, as in type of , descending from a particular being

context, as in, what is the source of the genera, if satanic realm, then false and evil as they cannot create, they are not beings...

so, the context of what I have ever said is only God's reality and creation,
not this earthly one because of the fall. And in answer to your question, when I spoke of type, before, how does genera relate to that. best.

 

[e v e]

"Human" in 'Eden context' was two human beings just as you are a human being and I am a human being. They were mortal. They were not glorified. Yes, Adam was called 'the Son of God'.

nope. they became mortal when they fell... yes, glorified until adam went to the enemy.Glorified as in the type of adm man made by God in the Original body, which was npsh, and the soul also npsh. now we are a chimera of a fleshbody perishable death nature, and the soul made by God, for we lost that eden nature.

Yes, they were created with the intent that they live forever with one condition, that they NOT eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed - sin and death through sin entered the world.

exactly. they ate and lost their original nature....

eden fell, and here we are in the false land. we are not in eden, not on his earth, but in the current land of sin and death...

 

[amazing grace]

nope. they became mortal when they fell... yes, glorified until adam went to the enemy.Glorified as in the type of adm man made by God in the Original body, which was npsh, and the soul also npsh. now we are a chimera of a fleshbody perishable death nature, and the soul made by God, for we lost that eden nature.

exactly. they ate and lost their original nature....

eden fell, and here we are in the false land. we are not in eden, not on his earth, but in the current land of sin and death...

Okay. Adam ORIGINALLY was formed from the dust of the ground, i.e. flesh. Adam became a living soul, nep̄eš (nehfesh) when God breathed the breath of life into him. BEFORE this NO MAN EXISTED.

I'm not sure where your foundational belief system stems from but I don't believe it is correct and in turn --- I'm sure you don't think mine is correct.

 

[Runningman]

what is your understnding of these terms

genera, as in type of , descending from a particular being

context, as in, what is the source of the genera, if satanic realm, then false and evil as they cannot create, they are not beings...

so, the context of what I have ever said is only God's reality and creation,
not this earthly one because of the fall. And in answer to your question, when I spoke of type, before, how does genera relate to that. best.

Would you consider yourself part of the Hebrew roots movement with some mysticism peppered in? I ask because as I am reading through your comments you use a lot of Hebrew words. Usually Hebrew roots people do that.

 

[e v e]

Would you consider yourself part of the Hebrew roots movement with some mysticism peppered in? I ask because as I am reading through your comments you use a lot of Hebrew words. Usually Hebrew roots people do that.

no... I don't belong to movements or any denomination and have not been in organized religion since age 17. I'm now old, retired ancients /philosophy prof which could explain use of ancient hebrew versus modern. I don't do modern.

 

[e v e]

Okay. Adam ORIGINALLY was formed from the dust of the ground, i.e. flesh.
but not this ground and not this current flesh.

Adam became a living soul, nep̄eš (nehfesh) when God breathed the breath of life into him. BEFORE this NO MAN EXISTED.

I'm not sure where your foundational belief system stems from but I don't believe it is correct and in turn --- I'm sure you don't think mine is correct.

man in ancient context of eden, with God, is man in the other reality, eden. not after the fall which is a different context and not in eden and not in the original nature and body made by God. terms such as body, land, world, flesh have a context.

we are in a foreign land. of death, illness, politics, labor, 'societal' morals.

I had no filters or rose-tinted glasses installed by belief systems... raised catholic = 1 hour a week sleeping through a latin mass as a child. read bible in my own. talked to God. left catholics as a teen with parents very upset about that. never joined any other sects/denominations though studied them in depth. evangelical sister going postal in restaurant (never knowing what i even understand or believe!) and telling me i am going to hell for not being evangelical. rinse and repeat last sentence multiple times. still has no idea what I believe. never tried to find out.

 

[e v e]

Okay. Adam ORIGINALLY was formed from the dust of the ground, i.e. flesh. Adam became a living soul, nep̄eš (nehfesh) when God breathed the breath of life into him. BEFORE this NO MAN EXISTED.

I'm not sure where your foundational belief system stems from but I don't believe it is correct and in turn --- I'm sure you don't think mine is correct.

Post in thread 'Trinitarian Training'

Sep 7, 2025

Words are important. They represent substance. They come forward from thought. What you choose to say is a reflection of who you are. First English word to understand.

Intrinsic. This word has its origins in English from French. Intrinsic

"Inward", or "inner".

In Greek it is εσωτερικός

the nature of this earth and sky lacks God's signature, is a foreign land.

His nature is intrinsic to His creation , which bears His signature, which was eden and its atmosphere in the other reality.

He , His Spirit , and His Son are of God's nature in their deity, thats the trinity...

• e v e

you can search my user with keyword trinity. lots of posts.... then you would know what i believe...

another keyword regarding my trinity posts is irenaeus, whose trinity explanation
was closer to okay ...

with Christ and God's spirit as His hands.

 

[e v e]

Okay. Adam ORIGINALLY was formed from the dust of the ground, i.e. flesh. Adam became a living soul, nep̄eš (nehfesh) when God breathed the breath of life into him. BEFORE this NO MAN EXISTED.

I'm not sure where your foundational belief system stems from but I don't believe it is correct and in turn --- I'm sure you don't think mine is correct.

Post in thread 'Understanding God Plurality as one Person'

Sep 17, 2024

Properly define the terms you used

Technically oneness theology is modalism where the one God acts in three modes

I have been arguing for 1 God existing eternally, simultaneously and equally as three persons

If you are going to claim Plato conceived of a three person one being God then provide the reference

I like how irenaeus puts it, where Christ and His spirit are God's hands... part of Him yet serving Him, inseparable from Him and His nature... and each of them beings IN Him... for ever.

• e v e

Three beings and the actual family of us in paradise.

we stepped right out of our mother when He spoke us into being. no procreation. no animal body like now.

 

[e v e]

no earthly kings, governments or pastors, just us His souls with Him in our eden land in the other gorgeous reality He spoke into being.