Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Milo Flores]

That is an excellent attitude. This forum has several unitarians who wish to impose their Judaizing thoughts (Gal 2:14) on us and we need to be vigilant. Keep the Trinitarian Faith.

I repeat and emphasize: I can admire even Trinitarians as examples of God’s grace.


I admire John of the Cross, whose mystical depth reflects a soul emptied in love. I admire Meister Eckhart, who dared to speak of the soul’s union with God in paradox and silence. And I admire Kierkegaard, who taught us the “leap” of faith beyond reason, into the arms of the living God.


My memory may fail at times, but I do not forget this: grace is wider than our categories. These men, despite their different formulations, bear witness to the reality of Christ.


“The Lord knows those who are His.” (2 Timothy 2:19)
“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15)


I admire them, not because I share every doctrinal word, but because in them I see grace at work —a reminder that Christ saves not by dogma, but by Himself.

 

[synergy]

I repeat and emphasize: I can admire even Trinitarians as examples of God’s grace.


I admire John of the Cross, whose mystical depth reflects a soul emptied in love. I admire Meister Eckhart, who dared to speak of the soul’s union with God in paradox and silence. And I admire Kierkegaard, who taught us the “leap” of faith beyond reason, into the arms of the living God.


My memory may fail at times, but I do not forget this: grace is wider than our categories. These men, despite their different formulations, bear witness to the reality of Christ.


“The Lord knows those who are His.” (2 Timothy 2:19)
“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15)


I admire them, not because I share every doctrinal word, but because in them I see grace at work —a reminder that Christ saves not by dogma, but by Himself.

That is a very good group of Christians. If you're looking for someone who can explain Biblically and has experienced how our soul can possibly unite with God, St Gregory of Palamas is the person for that. Unfortunately, his writings have not been accepted in Catholicism. I hope one day they will be.

 

[Runningman]

I'm sorry. I forget that I have to state everything carefully so you do not forget the ideas. I should have said it like this "So you say it all boils down to denying the divinity of Christ (in the Godhead) as scripture reveals to us." Put a bookmark on the detail that I always speak of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead so that people will not infer some diluted concept of divinity. Normally I would not want to have to add the clarification "in the Godhead" for something where there is no logical alternative sense.

I am reminded that you unitarians use the same dialogue points as the JWs. It sounds like modern Unitarians only differ from JWs by use of a different bible.

You're being thrown off by philosophy and you're having great difficulty separating your philosophy from what the Bible already says. You have an underlying philosophy and an assumption about what "Godhead" means. You probably connect this to your concept of god, but your concept is not Biblical. For example, the Christian God is not three persons nor ever described as such.

You're also making the mistake of proof texting. The way it works is, you have an idea about who or what you believe the Christian God is like (even though the Bible doesn't describe God the way you do) and then you attach verses to it, but you also mis-quote what the Bible says. You said Jesus is in the Godhead, which is not what the Bible says. The Bible says the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily in Colossians 2:9. Same thing as what applies to regular Christians as stated by Ephesians 3:19.

Let's break this down a little further. If the Godhead equals God and being filled with the all of the Godhead is the same thing as being filled with the fulness of God then on this particular point Jesus is not distinguishable from all of the other humans. You have bad reasoning and none of it follows Biblical logic. I highly recommend you drop all of the philosophy it's throwing you off to the point you don't understand anything the Bible says.

 

[Runningman]

Typical Strawman response from a unitarian whose heresy has been nailed to the wall. I never said anything against reigning with Jesus. What I said is that you do not get everyone to serve you. As much as you want to be the center of everyone's service/worship, that's not how it works. That point utterly destroys your Christ's Ascension = everyone's rapture Gaffe.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
.
.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

There you go again with your refusal to acknowledge that the Bible oftentimes uses the word "until" in a way that does not imply a change of state after the time mentioned.

For example, 2 Samuel 6:23 says, “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” With your way of thinking then you would have us believe that she had children after she died. Well done!

Bad reading comprehension. Jesus and the other saints were "GIVEN" their authority by the Most High. Therefore Jesus is not the Most High and never called such in the Bible. While it's true the people will serve Jesus, they will also rule together in equal ways while all of them together, Jesus included, serve the Most High.

There is a hierarchy, i.e., there is a least and greatest in the kingdom of heaven as Jesus taught. The Bible also teaches that God is greater than Jesus. Easy to figure out that Jesus isn't God based on the internal witness of the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

Faith Without Walls


This is exactly why I do not believe in any Church as an institution that imposes dogmas:
they build walls which Christ has already torn down.
I respect that we may have different opinions,
but never walls that divide brothers and sisters.


The struggle is not against those who truly love God and the truth,
but against the real enemy who seeks to deceive and divide.
What I see in Scripture I only share as my understanding,
never to provoke conflict, but to grow together.


“He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” (Eph 2:14)
“That they may all be one.” (John 17:21)
“Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world.” (Eph 6:12)

I also like your attitude because it isn't with arguments that anyone's heart ever softened to the point of repentance. As you may have well seen, the more you argue the more creative people will get in their pursuit to oppose what is right. I have seen people reach a point of complete and total callousness. It takes a few years, give or take, for someone to reach that point, but eventually people will shut their eyes and ears tighter than a bear trap after exhausting all of their excuses.

What can prevent this from happening is love. When you love someone and respect them they will love you, too, and want what you have. Ever been asked to do something by someone you don't like? It's more difficult to help someone we don't like than someone we love. If someone we love asks for something, we want to hear them because we appreciate them and respect them.

However, even Jesus knew where to draw the line. Some people can't be reached, some people must be opposed, rebuked, and brought under judgement and it doesn't happen overnight like this. You may have noticed that Jesus didn't immediately go around arguing with people, rebuking them, or inform them of their coming judgement. He started off that same way John the Baptist did which was a call to repentance. He used compassion, mercy, and love where it was fit to do so and withdrew it where it was appropriate.

Some heard Jesus and followed him, those are the ones he carefully taught and instructed in the ways of God and righteousness. Others opposed him and tested him at every turn. Eventually, even Jesus knew when to call someone a child of satan who will die in their sins unless they repent, but he never slammed the door shut in their face. He prayed for their forgiveness to his God right before the end of his life. The apostles continued this message early on in Acts and we can see that they informed Jesus' killers that they can still repent and it worked that time!

This shows that people can come around, people can learn they were wrong, but the other thing that can happen is they will continue to be enemies of the cross their entire life. You are coming into this discussion at a very late stage after many of the people here have already proven themselves to oppose almost everything the Bible says. Keep talking to them and you will see exactly what I mean. Welcome to the forum, also.

 

[Milo Flores]

I also like your attitude because it isn't with arguments that anyone's heart ever softened to the point of repentance. As you may have well seen, the more you argue the more creative people will get in their pursuit to oppose what is right. I have seen people reach a point of complete and total callousness. It takes a few years, give or take, for someone to reach that point, but eventually people will shut their eyes and ears tighter than a bear trap after exhausting all of their excuses.

What can prevent this from happening is love. When you love someone and respect them they will love you, too, and want what you have. Ever been asked to do something by someone you don't like? It's more difficult to help someone we don't like than someone we love. If someone we love asks for something, we want to hear them because we appreciate them and respect them.

However, even Jesus knew where to draw the line. Some people can't be reached, some people must be opposed, rebuked, and brought under judgement and it doesn't happen overnight like this. You may have noticed that Jesus didn't immediately go around arguing with people, rebuking them, or inform them of their coming judgement. He started off that same way John the Baptist did which was a call to repentance. He used compassion, mercy, and love where it was fit to do so and withdrew it where it was appropriate.

Some heard Jesus and followed him, those are the ones he carefully taught and instructed in the ways of God and righteousness. Others opposed him and tested him at every turn. Eventually, even Jesus knew when to call someone a child of satan who will die in their sins unless they repent, but he never slammed the door shut in their face. He prayed for their forgiveness to his God right before the end of his life. The apostles continued this message early on in Acts and we can see that they informed Jesus' killers that they can still repent and it worked that time!

This shows that people can come around, people can learn they were wrong, but the other thing that can happen is they will continue to be enemies of the cross their entire life. You are coming into this discussion at a very late stage after many of the people here have already proven themselves to oppose almost everything the Bible says. Keep talking to them and you will see exactly what I mean. Welcome to the forum, also.

Thank you for your words. I agree: it isn’t arguments that soften hearts, but love, compassion, and service. That is also how I understand kenosis — not as theory, but as the emptying of self so Christ’s love can shine. I appreciate your welcome.

 

[synergy]

Bad reading comprehension. Jesus and the other saints were "GIVEN" their authority by the Most High. Therefore Jesus is not the Most High and never called such in the Bible. While it's true the people will serve Jesus, they will also rule together in equal ways while all of them together, Jesus included, serve the Most High.

There is a hierarchy, i.e., there is a least and greatest in the kingdom of heaven as Jesus taught. The Bible also teaches that God is greater than Jesus. Easy to figure out that Jesus isn't God based on the internal witness of the Bible.

First of all, I see that you are no longer defending your idea that Dan 7:13-14 is about everyone's rapture since that would mean that you will be served/worshiped just as much as Him (highlighted in bold red) is worshiped in verse 14.

Second of all, let's see who is the one with the "Bad reading comprehension". Who is Him (highlighted in bold red) in verse 14 who everyone will start to serve/worship in Heaven?

13 “I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

 

[Peterlag]

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

Or any combination of 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person.

 

[Runningman]

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

Or any combination of 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person.

It would be pleasing to see a trinitarian debate with the one rule being to not use any non-Biblical terminology like the examples you just provided.

 

[mikesw]

It would be pleasing to see a trinitarian debate with the one rule being to not use any non-Biblical terminology like the examples you just provided.

It would really be useful to have unitarians debate with the rule they only use musical sounds to argue their view instead of using words or pictures.

 

[Runningman]

It would really be useful to have unitarians debate with the rule they only use musical sounds to argue their view instead of using words or pictures.

Funny. Can't we just both stick with only Biblical vocabulary? It worked for God, Jesus, and the apostles. If our beliefs are worth their salt, we should be able to use their words to accurately and completely explain precisely what we believe. I can understand how that would be a problem the trinitarian, though. It would be near impossible to inject the trinity into the Bible using only the internal language of the Bible. See why we don't believe you now? It's because you're saying things that are not found in Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Funny. Can't we just both stick with only Biblical vocabulary? It worked for God, Jesus, and the apostles. If our beliefs are worth their salt, we should be able to use their words to accurately and completely explain precisely what we believe. I can understand how that would be a problem the trinitarian, though. It would be near impossible to inject the trinity into the Bible using only the internal language of the Bible. See why we don't believe you now? It's because you're saying things that are not found in Scripture.

cyclic reasoning. Of course God, Jesus and the apostles used Biblical vocabulary because uhhh that refers to the words in the Bible. I see how you can rely on cyclic reasoning to lead you astray.

You are confused because you use a loaded language by limiting God and his divine Son by the words on a page. That merely lets heretics get away with diminishing Christ. Plus, the unitarians dismiss the pre-existence of Christ and verses most clearly about Jesus as God. Why not just stick with the pre-existence and Christ's divinity? Oh. Because the scriptures testify against the unitarian view.

 

[Peterlag]

cyclic reasoning. Of course God, Jesus and the apostles used Biblical vocabulary because uhhh that refers to the words in the Bible. I see how you can rely on cyclic reasoning to lead you astray.

You are confused because you use a loaded language by limiting God and his divine Son by the words on a page. That merely lets heretics get away with diminishing Christ. Plus, the unitarians dismiss the pre-existence of Christ and verses most clearly about Jesus as God. Why not just stick with the pre-existence and Christ's divinity? Oh. Because the scriptures testify against the unitarian view.

Terms found nowhere in Scripture...

• Divinity
• Pre-existence

cc: @Runningman

 

[mikesw]

Terms found nowhere in Scripture...

• Divinity
• Pre-existence

cc: @Runningman

Maybe I can find some software program that can help expand your vocabulary. If you have been using the Schoenheit Unitarian Pocket Dictionary, maybe you can get the Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Then you can participate in the discussions a bit better.

 

[Peterlag]

Maybe I can find some software program that can help expand your vocabulary. If you have been using the Schoenheit Unitarian Pocket Dictionary, maybe you can get the Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Then you can participate in the discussions a bit better.

Got the terms from Facebook from a guy I don't know who goes by the name of James Adams. Does the truth of what I write mean more if it comes from someone who I don't know?

 

[mikesw]

Got the terms from Facebook from a guy I don't know who goes by the name of James Adams. Does the truth of what I write mean more if it comes from someone who I don't know?

I'm just hoping you can expand your vocabulary so you can talk about the essence of God sufficiently. You have had a limited unitarian vocabulary. Why restrict the language unless you are trying to manipulate the discussion?

 

[Peterlag]

I'm just hoping you can expand your vocabulary so you can talk about the essence of God sufficiently. You have had a limited unitarian vocabulary. Why restrict the language unless you are trying to manipulate the discussion?

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

 

[mikesw]

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

so you do not have an argument against the verses about the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. You just have a philosophical preference for words you find in the Schoenheit Unitarian pocket dictionary. If that is your preference over the testimony of scripture, that is your option for your belief system.

 

[Peterlag]

so you do not have an argument against the verses about the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. You just have a philosophical preference for words you find in the Schoenheit Unitarian pocket dictionary. If that is your preference over the testimony of scripture, that is your option for your belief system.

Schoenheit did not write the following. I did...

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

 

[mikesw]

Schoenheit did not write the following. I did...

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

people had to make up all the English words. You even use words of pagan origin. You better not use the words in any discussion. You are not making scriptural arguments against the evidence of Jesus's pre-existence and of his divinity in the Godhead. You are playing word games. That does not suffice for debate purposes even if it works for a few of your friends.