Exactly bruh! That wasn't a good argument he tried to use, lol.. Telling me to either except the Bible's authority or not, like the Bible (word of God) is one book, written by one person, at one time. Step out of the box, you can't force people to have that type of faith(especially a non Christian, or a Jew for that matter), that's blind faith based on nothing and isn't following Biblical authority imo, but having faith in ancient interpretations such as the Council of Nicaea and the Roman Church. I tend to agree more with Arius' Doctrine, (though not all of it, lol), than that of St. Alexander, so I'm not going to interpret it like he does or except everything that John says/thinks, I've pointed out the problems with "John" anyways, but whateva.. Like I said, I'm just gonna put that to rest.
Question for Theists
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
This is what pisses me off, well for any matter any "Christian or Messianic" Believer. That we force our religion on people, is Heresy putting your head on a guillotine and telling you to believe in Yeshua? Is he torturing you? Does he really hold any religious zealotry, please don't confuse sharp interpretation with forcing ones religion on another.
When a Muslim tells me, well according to what Allah told Mohammad, if you don't believe in Islam or Allah you will go to hell. I don't necessarily consider it forcing their religion on me or a particular person.
When a Muslim tells me, well according to what Allah told Mohammad, if you don't believe in Islam or Allah you will go to hell. I don't necessarily consider it forcing their religion on me or a particular person.
Naw, it's all good, that's not how I feel. Just seems as if people are insisting that their interpretation of the word is the one true way to interpret it, which I disagree with. I personally don't accept the trinity doctrine, but that's my opinion, which is all that I'm getting across. All of this is people's opinions, so when someone tells you that you only think the way that you do because you don't understand, obviously there's a bias there because they're inclined to believe that everyone who doesn't agree with them is some how lost or doesn't understand. That's why I needed direct confirmation for my own personal satisfaction, in order to convince me.. I'm seeing a lot of wordplay, but no true affirmation. That's how you sway one's opinion, the rest is for the birds.
Actually Heresy is Right, there is no bias in saying you just don't understand, Read the Old Testament, and then Read the New Testament, It runs in conjunction. Jesus is throughout the Old Testament, He's even in Genesis. There's no bias in what he says, I agree with him in that regard, because you have yet to understand how interactions were in those days. If you don't believe the Trinity that's on you, is it bad, that's up to God, not me, not :H: or any man. If there's is no Trinity, the why is the bible clear of the Distinction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
It is a bias to use that "you don't understand shit" as an argument, it reflects the bias. Like I said before, there's people who are a lot higher in the theological hierarchy than me, you, or heresy. It's all relative, and a lot of those people do not believe in the trinity... You are off base as far as your assumptions about me, which is unfortunate, but not my problem. I have understood the interactions between the NT and the OT, I just believe that you choose to interpret it differently and you guys are simply seeing things that just aren't there, which is my opinion.. And I don't see where the trinity is ever mentioned at all in the Bible, at least no one has ever pointed that out to me.. The word trinity doesn't exist in the Bible, and the very concept is introduced in the Gospel of John. I swear if the Gospel of John ceased to exist, so would Christianity, this guy is the foundation of that whole religion. Ya'll seem more and more brainwashed the more I read ya'll comments(no disrespect)..
Lol, are you serious? Umm, no, that isn't gonna work...
Lol, are you serious? Umm, no, that isn't gonna work...
When Jesus was Baptized, This shows you the Trinity Matthew Chapter 3:13-17 In Verse 16-17 which I will post it's obvious God is Omni-Present, yet Distinct.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptied, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove(The Holy Spirit;Ruach HaKodesh), and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son(Yeshua Moshiach, Yahshua,Yeshua, Yeshi, The Son), in whom I am(Yah) well pleased.(Father Speaking in First Person).
Now, is this a misconstrued form of English to you? Isn't any distinction between the Trinity, and I am well aware that God is onmipresent, would it be more necessary to say, Here is Jesus, I am proud of myself, speaking from the Father's Perspective?
16 And Jesus, when he was baptied, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove(The Holy Spirit;Ruach HaKodesh), and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son(Yeshua Moshiach, Yahshua,Yeshua, Yeshi, The Son), in whom I am(Yah) well pleased.(Father Speaking in First Person).
Now, is this a misconstrued form of English to you? Isn't any distinction between the Trinity, and I am well aware that God is onmipresent, would it be more necessary to say, Here is Jesus, I am proud of myself, speaking from the Father's Perspective?
1) Did John say it was his opinion?
2) John's words are not trustworthy, but what John relays as being Jesus' words are? How do you know that those were really Jesus' words?
Bottom line, you have no basis to accept one part of what John writes and not another. It all comes under the same scrutiny. That goes for anyone else who had a hand in writing the Bible.
2) John's words are not trustworthy, but what John relays as being Jesus' words are? How do you know that those were really Jesus' words?
Bottom line, you have no basis to accept one part of what John writes and not another. It all comes under the same scrutiny. That goes for anyone else who had a hand in writing the Bible.
You're still reaching in my opinion.. All this does is describes the revelation that Jesus was actually the Messiah, and belonged to God. The word distinct is a very crucial word for me concerning the trinity.. This is definitely not a reference to a possible trinity, just shows a relationship between God and the son/messiah.. The Trinity doesn't appear until John, like I said, which is the only basis by which Christians hold this doctrine. The Bible is like a big word puzzle, you can easily make things connect if you tried and searched hard enough. It all depends on how you twist it. My biggest motivation for sticking to Unitarianism is the simple fact that Jews have always been Unitarians.. Moses never preached Trinitarianism, so I don't think that it should hurt me too much to praise the same God that the son's of Israel did, and still do today..
For one, I already destroyed your entire argument. Go to page 4 and you'll see that you were trampled and trodden with no possible hope of actually replying which is why you didn't reply. As for the link you posted you simply murdered yourself again. Question, if the study of the original languages is not required why did the people in your link RELY on it (amongst other things) to come to their conclusion? :dead:
Less than a month ago you were yelling about how logical and scientific islam was, but later you turned your back on islam. LOL! At least be consistant.
Less than a month ago you were yelling about how logical and scientific islam was, but later you turned your back on islam. LOL! At least be consistant.
Heresy, Give ParkBoyz that link you gave me pertaining to the Book of Psalms, and Jesus' quotes.
Here Read 1st Corinthians Chapter 8, Read the First 6-8 Verses.
Yeah and only a mere Son of God, can forgive people Just Like God, and Not Be God?
@Parkboyz, Read Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image....
Who could possibly be with him at the Time? Elohim is Plural, not necessarily meaning God is many, but similar to Echad, Oneness through Unity.
Edit:9165150 My Bad Bro.
Here Read 1st Corinthians Chapter 8, Read the First 6-8 Verses.
Yeah and only a mere Son of God, can forgive people Just Like God, and Not Be God?
@Parkboyz, Read Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image....
Who could possibly be with him at the Time? Elohim is Plural, not necessarily meaning God is many, but similar to Echad, Oneness through Unity.
Edit:9165150 My Bad Bro.
You still act as if the Bible is one book, from one period of time, written by one person. It's a collection of works unified into what you call a Bible.. You put your trust in the Roman or Protestant Church. There's different versions of the Bible bruh, the Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the King James. The Gospel of Thomas was taken out by the church for example, and was deemed as heretical.. What right did they have to do that? You can't question anyone who holds John in suspicion, when that is one of the very basis' by which the Protestant church was formed. Some people aren't blind followers and demand the truth.. I believe that God's word is in the Bible, but some of the words in there are definitely not of God, and a lot of those words are apparent.
THEREFORE, I ask on what basis do you accept one part and reject another?
Do you just do it whimsically... whatever feeds your preconceived theory?
If John writes a book of the Bible, then either it is authoritative or it isn't. On what basis do you accept only what Jesus allegedly says, according to John, but not anything else said by John? He didn't say at any point that it was his opinion.
Do you just do it whimsically... whatever feeds your preconceived theory?
If John writes a book of the Bible, then either it is authoritative or it isn't. On what basis do you accept only what Jesus allegedly says, according to John, but not anything else said by John? He didn't say at any point that it was his opinion.