Trinitarians Godheadians, Can Their Translations Defend The Trinity Doctrine Of Trinity Faith System

[KingJ]

I never said He did.

You are not dealing with the fact that He did not sin. That fact proves He is diety.

I haven't posted any verses, so, how exactly am I cherry picking?

I am concluding this from past discussion and the fact that you are not dealing with the above.

How exactly does a non Trinitarian belief misrepresent God or make a mockery of Christianity.

I have explained this to you before and I touch on it in this thread. Why do you think St Augustine makes such an extreme statement?

Do you hold to the doctrine of Penal Atonement?

We are not discussing this again. You have forgotten our last discussion it seems.

Butch, please, take a day or two and think on the fact that Jesus did not sin.

Or, is it that you do not believe this? Muslims / non Christians would teach that He was merely a good person who did sin. You either believe He sinned and was a human / prophet or you believe He did not sin and cannot have been merely a human. There is no middle ground.

 

[Butch5]

You are not dealing with the fact that He did not sin. That fact proves He is diety.

Firstly, that He did not sin doesn't prove deity. There have been babies born and died that did not sin. They were not deity. However, the Bible calls the demons that the pagans worship gods or deities. The demons sin all the tIme.

I am concluding this from past discussion and the fact that you are not dealing with the above.

Ok, let me get this straight. You're arguing for a doctrine without using Scripture, but rather a deductive argument. Then you say I'm cherry picking passages of Scripture. So I'm arguing using Scripture and you're arguing without any Scripture.

I have explained this to you before and I touch on it in this thread. Why do you think St Augustine makes such an extreme statement?

Firstly, you gave no context for the statement so I have no idea what he is referencing. However, a statement by Augustine doesn't prove anything other than what he believed. He also believed that God chose the elecet before creation everyone else had no hope. He also believed that the elect couldn't be lost. Augustine was a Manichean before becoming a Christian. Those prior beliefs influenced his understanding of Scripture. As they do with all people.

We are not discussing this again. You have forgotten our last discussion it seems.

Do you know how many discussions I have with Christians? If I could remember everything everyone said it would be amazing.

Butch, please, take a day or two and think on the fact that Jesus did not sin.

Or, is it that you do not believe this? Muslims / non Christians would teach that He was merely a good person who did sin. You either believe He sinned and was a human / prophet or you believe He did not sin and cannot have been merely a human. There is no middle ground.

This is the fallacy known as the False Dilemma, or, the Either/Or fallacy. It's either this or it's that. Well, there are other options. I guess you're not seeing them.

 

[KingJ]

Firstly, that He did not sin doesn't prove deity. There have been babies born and died that did not sin. They were not deity.

It does. I agree that babies have no sin, but that is because they were never tested. Never able to be accountable. Jesus faced all temptations and did not sin.

Like I have said to you, you need to meditate on this fact. You are being evasive and moving the goal posts.

However, the Bible calls the demons that the pagans worship gods or deities. The demons sin all the tIme.

Lol. You know the context here and yet you post this. Wasting my time. You know a demon is a fallen angel and that none are deity. But to humans, sure, they can be worshipped as such. Your argument is on par with saying Pharoah is deity. You are not recognizing what the word deity means.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God.

Ok, let me get this straight. You're arguing for a doctrine without using Scripture, but rather a deductive argument. Then you say I'm cherry picking passages of Scripture. So I'm arguing using Scripture and you're arguing without any Scripture.

And here we go in circles all over again. You cannot run until you can walk. We have discussed scriptures in the past. You hold to a few cherry picked passages and stay in your bubble. I am trying to help you walk before we focus on contentious scriptures.

Firstly, you gave no context for the statement so I have no idea what he is referencing. However, a statement by Augustine doesn't prove anything other than what he believed. He also believed that God chose the elecet before creation everyone else had no hope. He also believed that the elect couldn't be lost. Augustine was a Manichean before becoming a Christian. Those prior beliefs influenced his understanding of Scripture. As they do with all people.

Once more moving goal posts. That he switched to a type of Calvinistic view later in his life is a separate topic.

Do you know how many discussions I have with Christians? If I could remember everything everyone said it would be amazing.

Wow, we had a long one on one discussion. I recall most of it.

This is the fallacy known as the False Dilemma, or, the Either/Or fallacy. It's either this or it's that. Well, there are other options. I guess you're not seeing them.

What other options are there? If you say babies again I am leaving this discussion.

 

[Butch5]

It does. I agree that babies have no sin, but that is because they were never tested. Never able to be accountable. Jesus faced all temptations and did not sin.

Now you're moving the goal posts. First being deity is having no sin. Now it's having no sin and having been tested. That's the fallacy known as, the "No True Scottsman"

Like I have said to you, you need to meditate on this fact. You are being evasive and moving the goal posts.

I'm not being evasive. Your premise is flawed. Prove from Scripture that being without sin makes one deity. You're simply making an assertion

Lol. You know the context here and yet you post this. Wasting my time. You know a demon is a fallen angel and that none are deity. But to humans, sure, they can be worshipped as such. Your argument is on par with saying Pharoah is deity. You are not recognizing what the word deity means.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God

Or maybe it's refuting the argument. The Bible calls the demons pagan gods. Are you arguing against Scripture?

And here we go in circles all over again. You cannot run until you can walk. We have discussed scriptures in the past. You hold to a few cherry picked passages and stay in your bubble. I am trying to help you walk before we focus on contentious scriptures.

You've presented a flawed argument, nothing else. You've given no Scripture. Show me something other than opinion.

Once more moving goal posts. That he switched to a type of Calvinistic view later in his life is a separate topic.

It simply shows he was wrong about those beliefs. He was wrong on a lot more than that. Why should I be concerned with what he said?

Wow, we had a long one on one discussion. I recall most of it.

That's great. As I said, I have many discussions with Christians .

What other options are there? If you say babies again I am leaving this discussion.

Maybe He didn't sin and became human.

 

[KingJ]

Now you're moving the goal posts. First being deity is having no sin. Now it's having no sin and having been tested. That's the fallacy known as, the "No True Scottsman"

Not moving goal posts, you are just not grasping the topic.

Not sinning is only a matter of significance if 1. there is temptation to sin and 2. an innate ability to sin.

I'm not being evasive. Your premise is flawed. Prove from Scripture that being without sin makes one deity. You're simply making an assertion

All, except for God have sinned.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
All Angels sin 1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels.

Only God is righteous and without sin.

Psalm 145:17 God is righteous in all His ways.
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from the beginning, God is light with no darkness in Him at all.
Job 34:12 It is unthinkable that God would be wicked and pervert justice.
Mark 10:18 Only God is good.

Or maybe it's refuting the argument. The Bible calls the demons pagan gods. Are you arguing against Scripture?

You are cherry picking. The bible 'also' says that demons are fallen angels. We are created just beneath them Rom 2:9.
That pagans worshipped them as deities does not make them deity. There is only one God. One deity. 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God.

You've presented a flawed argument, nothing else. You've given no Scripture. Show me something other than opinion.

I did not make an argument, I stated a fact. You want to discuss contentious scriptures when you do not even grasp Christianity 101. One God. God is perfect. Jesus did not sin.

If you think of the discussion on hell as an example. Many cherry pick scriptures on '''fire'', ignoring those that state God is good, righteous and the definition of love. You are doing this with the trinity. You are not dealing with the fact that Jesus was without sin. You are dancing around it.

It simply shows he was wrong about those beliefs. He was wrong on a lot more than that. Why should I be concerned with what he said?

He said he acknowledged that it is a topic we cannot get wrong!!!! The entire Catholic church acknowledges this. Can you honestly not think of a reason for why Jesus not being God mocks Christianity???

Maybe He didn't sin and became human.

Maybe He didn't sin?

Heb 4:15 but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
2 Cor 5:21 he who knew no sin was counted as sin in order that we might become the righteousness of God.
1 Pet 2:22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.

 

[Butch5]

Not moving goal posts, you are just not grasping the topic.

You are moving the goal posts. First you said, having no sin makes Jesus Deity. When I showed others who didn't sin you added a requirement, having had to be tested, in order to eliminate the evidence I presented. That's moving the goal posts. It's also known as the "No True Scottsman" fallacy.

Not sinning is only a matter of significance if 1. there is temptation to sin and 2. an innate ability to sin.

There's a problem here that destroys your argument. Jesus is God. God cannot be tempted with sin.

James 1:13 (KJV 1900): 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Since God can't sin, He can't be tempted. Thus, your requirement that one must have been tested is irrelevant.

This presents a significant problem for your argument.

All, except for God have sinned.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
All Angels sin 1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels.

Only God is righteous and without sin.

Psalm 145:17 God is righteous in all His ways.
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from the beginning, God is light with no darkness in Him at all.
Job 34:12 It is unthinkable that God would be wicked and pervert justice.
Mark 10:18 Only God is good.

But that doesn't prove that being without sin makes one deity.

You are cherry picking. The bible 'also' says that demons are fallen angels. We are created just beneath them Rom 2:9.
That pagans worshipped them as deities does not make them deity. There is only one God. One deity. 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God.

You may want to look up the word deity. Though they are not the one true God, they were deities to the people who worshipped them. The Bible acknowledges this. They sinned. It's funny yhay you accuse me of Cherry Picking at the same time you're dismissing evidence, which is, Cherry Picking.

I did not make an argument, I stated a fact. You want to discuss contentious scriptures when you do not even grasp Christianity 101. One God. God is perfect. Jesus did not sin.

You are making an argument. The argument is, Jesus is deity because He didn't sin. But you've given no evidence to support it.

If you think of the discussion on hell as an example. Many cherry pick scriptures on '''fire'', ignoring those that state God is good, righteous and the definition of love. You are doing this with the trinity. You are not dealing with the fact that Jesus was without sin. You are dancing around it.

Dude, I'm not dancing around anything. I've addressed the fallacies in the premise. I've given examples of others who never sinned but weren't deities. And, I've given examples of those the Bible calls deities that did sin. These examples destroy the premise that being sinless makes one deity. We have examples of deities who sin. We have examples of non deities that haven't sinned. The premise, being sinless makes one deity, is refuted.

He said he acknowledged that it is a topic we cannot get wrong!!!! The entire Catholic church acknowledges this. Can you honestly not think of a reason for why Jesus not being God mocks Christianity???

Why is it a topic we cannot get wrong? Think about that. If it was a topic that we couldn't get wrong, that would imply that if one gets it wrong they're not saved. If that was the case why weren't the Apostles all over this? Why don't we find every sermon in Scripture saying make sure you correctly understand the Trinity or you won't be saved? The Trinity isn't mentioned anywhere in their writings. What about all of those early Christians, were they lost? I find it hard to believe that Jesus came to bring the Gospel, trained 12 men to send into the world to spread it, and they somehow left out one of the most essential parts.

Maybe He didn't sin?

Heb 4:15 but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
2 Cor 5:21 he who knew no sin was counted as sin in order that we might become the righteousness of God.
1 Pet 2:22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.

I didn't say maybe He didn't sin. I've already said He didn't sin. What I gave was a third option. You gave two options and I said maybe there is a third option, He didn't sin and became human, which was negating the "False Dilemma" fallacy.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear Brother,
More of the same.

I'm not implying anything. Just giving my experience.

Sure, you are! You were making a correlation between what I wrote concerning the Holy Spirit and your experiences. Maybe a little more clarity like "I am not saying you, but other Christians I have heard say that a doctrine they hold came to them from the Holy Spirit."

Still no matter how you slice it, the implication is there brother, that you believe that the "doctrine" if you will, came to me by the Holy Spirit and that is not what I wrote! Otherwise, by the implication of your words, you yourself I am sure have made "doctrine" through analysis of other writings and not just through Holy Spirit guidance instead of it just being a confirmation of the truth/lie of one (doctrine).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does "codified" mean?.

It was formalized in the Athanasian Creed.

Trinity was a belief that was held prior to this was it not?

How did those whoever they may be that believed in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as One God come to that conclusion? It’s

Not that im aware of. At least not in the form of the Athanasian Creed. Tertullian is the one who is credited with coining the term Trinity as it relates to Christianity. However, he didn't believe there were three persons as one God

That's a good question. It was the Catholic Church that formalized the doctrine. How they came to that idea is beyond me. It seems totally illogical.

First that is not what "codified" means. You are just using it to define the purposes of the Athanasian Creed to a body of people in some authoritative position within a religion who put it to paper so to speak. The Athanasian Creed holds no meaning to me. Secondly it was never part of my consideration for determining the truth or lie of the Trinity. Now you can say that it was by the writings of Tertullian that the word came to be used to define the concept I was considering, and where the discussion for the concept started, but to assume he was the originator of the thought itself, when one is not even positive that it was he who as you say "coined" the phrase is stretching it a bit won't you say especially as you say he did not even believe it.

Let me give you a comparison. If the Bible were not written, would the Heavens still declare the Glory of God if it hadn't told us so how would you know? Would God even exist if not for the Word of God? Would Jesus have existed? The Holy Spirit? The Devil? and it goes on and on.

One can come to a conclusion about something heard, which we do all the time, and at times it does change, but when it is driven by what is contained in Scripture and it is the Holy Spirit (Personage) who opens your understanding to it, I would have to say, no it will not change.

Now how others from your experiences concerning Doctrine and the Holy Spirit came to their understandings, I could not say. I have not talked with them, but you have, and I can only assume that you are disbelieving what they have told you because it does not line up with the Scripture written as you understand it to be.

See logic is fine, but then logic tells you that no one would die on the Cross for people they did not know, and who had/have no love for you, at least not until it actually happened in Christ Jesus....still there are those who still do not believe!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't suggesting you got the idea of the Trinity from the Athanasian Creed. I was simply pointing that those who wrote it said if you don't believe it you can't be saved. I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that says if someone doesn't believe the Trinity doctrine they can't be saved. Why would someone say that? Could it be for control? Could it be to scare the illiterate population ( I'm referring to 5th century Christians) so as to control them? Or, could it be to force people to believe something that the church couldn't prove? If they had something that didn't make sense yet they wanted the force the people to believe it, what better way than telling them they have to believe it or they can't be saved?

Let me ask a question. Have you ever changed your position on a doctrine? I have. I believe most have. If we're getting our doctrines via the Holy Spirit why would we change them? I changed doctrines because I learned they didn't align with God's word. How many people have beleived the Holy Spirit lead them to some doctrine only to later change their position on that doctrine?

I'm not saying the Spirit doesn't guide us. But, how exactly do we know some doctrine has to us from the Spirit versus us just coming to a rational understanding? This brings me back to my previous point. If we believe we've come to a doctrine via the Spirit, how likely are we to ever question that doctrine. I mean many Christians don't even question doctrines they've been taught by pastors let alone questioning one they believe came via the Spirit. How do we know which it is?

Partly answered above. (Heavy sigh)

Agreed, our Salvation is based on Jesus...and there is the crux of the problem we have with or without the Trinity as a word. Who was Jesus? Who was He really? Was He just a Man? Was He the incarnate God? Was He Man & God? Is our Salvation based upon who He actually is or was, or by the belief that whoever He was that He died in our place as a sinless sacrifice, in place of ourselves?

However, it was Jesus had to be something more to be a sinless sacrifice. He had to be sinless for 30 years before the John the Baptist baptismal in the Jordan river. What does logic tell you when not only deed is sinful, but also thoughts?

I say this not to put doubt in your mind, which I am sure I could not brother, but to show that our logic, and what we see as being God is but a glimpse of who He truly is whether you believe in the Trinity or not!

Which brings us to the Holy Spirit. So, you see the Holy Spirit as; and how have you felt His presence, knowing it to be Him?

I will separate this from the rest of what you have written. For the SOF is the other hat that I also wear as a Moderator. One in truth has little to do with the other, though I am sure you would disagree.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Butch5]

Dear Brother,
More of the same.

Sure, you are! You were making a correlation between what I wrote concerning the Holy Spirit and your experiences. Maybe a little more clarity like "I am not saying you, but other Christians I have heard say that a doctrine they hold came to them from the Holy Spirit."

Still no matter how you slice it, the implication is there brother, that you believe that the "doctrine" if you will, came to me by the Holy Spirit and that is not what I wrote! Otherwise, by the implication of your words, you yourself I am sure have made "doctrine" through analysis of other writings and not just through Holy Spirit guidance instead of it just being a confirmation of the truth/lie of one (doctrine).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Nick, in your initial post you said,

"Do, I know what the Holy Spirit has opened my eyes to as it pertains to the Godhead? Yes."

How did I imply it of you stated it?

First that is not what "codified" means. You are just using it to define the purposes of the Athanasian Creed to a body of people in some authoritative position within a religion who put it to paper so to speak.

That's what codified means.

The Athanasian Creed holds no meaning to me. Secondly it was never part of my consideration for determining the truth or lie of the Trinity.

You said you heard arguments from both sides. One of those sides is that of the Athanasian Creed. You may never have read the Creed but that position comes directly out of the Creed.

Now you can say that it was by the writings of Tertullian that the word came to be used to define the concept I was considering, and where the discussion for the concept started, but to assume he was the originator of the thought itself, when one is not even positive that it was he who as you say "coined" the phrase is stretching it a bit won't you say especially as you say he did not even believe it.

My point is that the guy who coined the term, didn't understand it as it's stated in the Athanasian Creed. That means the definition of the term changed over time. We can debate if he actually coined the term. However, we first find it in history in his writings.

Let me give you a comparison. If the Bible were not written, would the Heavens still declare the Glory of God if it hadn't told us so how would you know? Would God even exist if not for the Word of God? Would Jesus have existed? The Holy Spirit? The Devil? and it goes on and on.

One can come to a conclusion about something heard, which we do all the time, and at times it does change, but when it is driven by what is contained in Scripture and it is the Holy Spirit (Personage) who opens your understanding to it, I would have to say, no it will not change.

If so, doesn't that mean we can never know it was from the Holy Spirit until we're about to die and would no longer change our doctrine? I mean, after all. If we've changed some of our doctrines, how do we know we won't change others in the future?

Now how others from your experiences concerning Doctrine and the Holy Spirit came to their understandings, I could not say. I have not talked with them, but you have, and I can only assume that you are disbelieving what they have told you because it does not line up with the Scripture written as you understand it to be.

See logic is fine, but then logic tells you that no one would die on the Cross for people they did not know, and who had/have no love for you, at least not until it actually happened in Christ Jesus....still there are those who still do not believe!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not logic.

Partly answered above. (Heavy sigh)

Agreed, our Salvation is based on Jesus...and there is the crux of the problem we have with or without the Trinity as a word. Who was Jesus? Who was He really? Was He just a Man? Was He the incarnate God? Was He Man & God? Is our Salvation based upon who He actually is or was, or by the belief that whoever He was that He died in our place as a sinless sacrifice, in place of ourselves?

Who is Jesus is the crux of the issue. We can have that discussion if you'd like.

However, it was Jesus had to be something more to be a sinless sacrifice. He had to be sinless for 30 years before the John the Baptist baptismal in the Jordan river. What does logic tell you when not only deed is sinful, but also thoughts?

That's no logic.

He had the Father instructing Him from birth. I suspect He knew things were sin long before He ever faced that temptation.

I say this not to put doubt in your mind, which I am sure I could not brother, but to show that our logic, and what we see as being God is but a glimpse of who He truly is whether you believe in the Trinity or not!

If we relinquish logic we open ourselves to error. Granted, God is far above our understanding. But, that doesn't require us to be illogical.

Which brings us to the Holy Spirit. So, you see the Holy Spirit as; and how have you felt His presence, knowing it to be Him?

Mostly in ways that are irrefutable. Have I had times when I thought God revealed something to me in Scripture? Sure. Can I prove it? No. Do I know for certain it was God, No. I was taught a lot of error as most Christians are. However, when I learned it I thought it was the word of God. Why didn't the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to me? Could it be that God wanted me in His word seeking out the truth. Let's face it, the Holy Spirit could come to every Christian and tell them all the beliefs they have that are wrong. Why doesn't that happen? Maybe God wants us digging in His word to find the answers.

I will separate this from the rest of what you have written. For the SOF is the other hat that I also wear as a Moderator. One in truth has little to do with the other, though I am sure you would disagree.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

Ok, thanks!

Earlier you mentioned coming to the Trinity doctrine. How did you come to that position?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear Brother, @Butch5
Spread out way too much!!!!! lol
I'll take one at a time.
Who or what is the Holy Spirit?
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[KingJ]

But that doesn't prove that being without sin makes one deity.

Yes it does. The scripture I gave literally says all sin except for God.

I will give you a day or two to meditate on it.

 

[Butch5]

Yes it does. The scripture I gave literally says all sin except for God.

I will give you a day or two to meditate on it.

Yes, the Scriptures say all have sinned. What's the context? You've already admitted that there have been babies who were born and died that didn't sin. How can it be both ways? How can these babies have both sinned and not sinned? There's nothing meditate on.

But, the point is, there's nothing in Scripture that says being sinless makes one God. That's just an arbitrary assertion.

 

[Butch5]

Dear Brother, @Butch5
Spread out way too much!!!!! lol
I'll take one at a time.
Who or what is the Holy Spirit?
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

According to Jesus it's the Father.

 

[Christ4Ever]

According to Jesus it's the Father.

Scripture please.

 

[Butch5]

Scripture please.

5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.16 “A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father.”
17 Then some of His disciples said among themselves, “What is this that He says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me’; and, ‘because I go to the Father’?” 18 They said therefore, “What is this that He says, ‘A little while’? We do not know what He is saying.”
19 Now Jesus knew that they desired to ask Him, and He said to them, “Are you inquiring among yourselves about what I said, ‘A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me’? 20 Most assuredly, I say to you that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; and you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy. 21 A woman, when she is in labor, has sorrow because her hour has come; but as soon as she has given birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 Therefore you now have sorrow; but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you.
23 “And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 16:5–25.

Here Jesus is speaking of the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth and says that He's speaking figuratively of the Father.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Here Jesus is speaking of the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth and says that He's speaking figuratively of the Father.

“These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.

What are these things? Is it all inclusive to this moment or from Chapter 13 when the Lord's supper began and Jesus' entire conversation.
Start there and tell me if it is truly the Father as the Holy Spirit that you receive from its reading.
Additional Note within the reading: Interesting as well is Jesus speaking of Himself and the Father.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Butch5]

What are these things? Is it all inclusive to this moment or from Chapter 13 when the Lord's supper began and Jesus' entire conversation.
Start there and tell me if it is truly the Father as the Holy Spirit that you receive from its reading.
Additional Note within the reading: Interesting as well is Jesus speaking of Himself and the Father.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

Yes, it's from Chapter 13. I didn't see any point in pasting 3 whole chapters.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Yes, it's from Chapter 13. I didn't see any point in pasting 3 whole chapters.

lol - Maybe you should have, because if v25 was saying that the Holy Spirit is the Father, and that is all you took from those chapters, you must have only scanned them, because if it is figuratively speaking then it must include the entirety of what was said, and what was talked about was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If you are then saying that all 3 are one but only at one time. That would line up more with "Oneness or Modalism".
Is that what you are saying you believe?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Butch5]

lol - Maybe you should have, because if v25 was saying that the Holy Spirit is the Father, and that is all you took from those chapters, you must have only scanned them, because if it is figuratively speaking then it must include the entirety of what was said, and what was talked about was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If you are then saying that all 3 are one but only at one time. That would line up more with "Oneness or Modalism".
Is that what you are saying you believe?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

No, I don't hold to Modalism.

 

[Christ4Ever]

No, I don't hold to Modalism.

What do you hold to?

 

[Butch5]

What do you hold to?

Monotheism