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

[mikesw]

Your flavor of trinitarianism is called Logos theology. It's very niche and relies on a verse or two for its existence. Not every trinitarian follows that, especially the smarter and well-studied ones like Meyers, who happens to be one of my favorite trinitarian theologians since he often affirms that Jesus is not God in almost every way, without ever explicitly saying so.

following scripture is very niche. Jesus said the path is narrow. I follow what scriptures share when showing Jesus is God.

Nor do i comprehend in what fashion you agree with the testimony of Meyer for the Triune God. You try to take some writing of his in the incorrect fashion and apply it to some deviant unitarian concept. That is violating basic scholarly principles of having to show where he goes wrong in defending the Trinity, especially in trying to apply his text, without any clear basis, for a unitarian belief.

 

[civic]

You don't really try hard. Do you have quotes from his analysis to support your rendition of his views?

And it seems very ignorant to say trinitarians could verge on modalism. It seems like you were going to your friends or sources to see if you could redeem your original posting of Meyer's commentary. Even if spouting a binitarian argument, he still disqualifies the unitarian view. Thanks for another argument against unitarianism though.

And the idea of Jesus simply emerging from revelation seems totally a mischaracterization. Meyer only says that there were aspects of scripture that showed something like the Wisdom of Prov 8 working in creation but then other passages show a more conscious partner alongside God in creation. The hyperliteralist however tends to flatten scripture and remove progress of deeper insight into the recognition of the preexisting One who became incarnate as Christ. There should have been enough in the quotes I shared for you to challenge Meyer on those key points.

We're looking forward for the quotes from Meyer or from scholars to support your rendition shared here. You started off so badly it will probably take multiple posts to get back to square one.

some people only can see what they want to see and been indoctrinated with as we see with the uni's. this shows how some are just unteachable and will not accept biblical correction.

 

[Peterlag]

That has been proven incorrect. The things you believe are accurate according to your incorrect interpretation of Scripture, but with proper understanding taking into account ALL of Scripture, you are WAY OFF.

Just a couple of things that I see about B.G. that leap out at me:
1. He allowed himself to be referred to as "reverend". While that title is not listed amongst Jesus' prohibited titles and appellations, it fits within the spirit of the prohibited titles, and so should NEVER be used or allowed by a true Christ follower.

2. Within the "statement of faith" of his "christian" training centre, proclamation #2 is the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a separate being/entity. This is completely contradicted by Scripture (John 14:26, 15:26).

He was a false teacher, regardless of his accolades and notoriety.

I don't care what a man calls himself. Old Leonard had a better take on the holy spirit than most so-called clergy knowing it was the gift of God and the difference between the Holy Spirit who is God.

 

[Runningman]

following scripture is very niche. Jesus said the path is narrow. I follow what scriptures share when showing Jesus is God.

Nor do i comprehend in what fashion you agree with the testimony of Meyer for the Triune God. You try to take some writing of his in the incorrect fashion and apply it to some deviant unitarian concept. That is violating basic scholarly principles of having to show where he goes wrong in defending the Trinity, especially in trying to apply his text, without any clear basis, for a unitarian belief.

You might actually have a point if this was not your M.O. for every reply. You have never disagreed with even one fact I have showed you, which is statistically unlikely to happen. Since you deny everything then of course you couldn't be trusted with an honest opinion. You're just contrarian and it's the only tool in your box it seems. You always reroute everything back to John 1:1. No one in the Bible every talked about what John 1:1 says in your translation when describing or explaining God. As I said, you have a very niche and eisegetical interpretation of Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

You might actually have a point if this was not your M.O. for every reply. You have never disagreed with even one fact I have showed you, which is statistically unlikely to happen. Since you deny everything then of course you couldn't be trusted with an honest opinion. You're just contrarian and it's the only tool in your box it seems. You always reroute everything back to John 1:1. No one in the Bible every talked about what John 1:1 says in your translation when describing or explaining God. As I said, you have a very niche and eisegetical interpretation of Scripture.

haha. you forget that you have not shown any facts. you just distort things like Meyer's comments.

You have not explained where Meyer went wrong in applying the discussion describing the Triune God.

If you had a real argument, people would have followed your beliefs and mindset already.

 

[Doug Brents]

I don't care what a man calls himself.

Then you don't care what God says, because He says that it matters greatly what a man calls himself.

Old Leonard had a better take on the holy spirit than most so-called clergy knowing it was the gift of God and the difference between the Holy Spirit who is God.

Thank you for that opinion. It helps greatly to know who you are following, so that I know where to classify your opinions. They belong in the round file.

 

[Runningman]

haha. you forget that you have not shown any facts. you just distort things like Meyer's comments.

You have not explained where Meyer went wrong in applying the discussion describing the Triune God.

If you had a real argument, people would have followed your beliefs and mindset already.

Maybe if you could demonstrate you ever agree with what the truth is then maybe your commentary could be taken seriously. Just for the record, is there anything you agree with about what the Bible explicitly says aside from John 1:1?

 

[mikesw]

Maybe if you could demonstrate you ever agree with what the truth is then maybe your commentary could be taken seriously. Just for the record, is there anything you agree with about what the Bible explicitly says aside from John 1:1?

haha. you are trying to be a comedian now. or worse, you are becoming forgetful.

Anyhow, you have not expressed where you think Meyer strayed from your interpretation of his words to him using his analysis as pointing to the affirmation of the deity of Christ within the Godhead. How come you keep avoiding that? I offer that you were trying to take words out of context to use as a proof text.

 

[Peterlag]

Then you don't care what God says, because He says that it matters greatly what a man calls himself.

Thank you for that opinion. It helps greatly to know who you are following, so that I know where to classify your opinions. They belong in the round file.

Some of the greatest men of God who have gone beyond the thinking of most in the biblical field are considered outside of the reach of religious folks like you and are considered by folks like you to be a loner, an outcast, the filth of the community, or if you will... a heretic.