Trinity DebateTrinity debateLet's see who is caught in error. First of all let's start with a proper definition of the word "attribute" since your unfoot-noted and vague definition above is misleading. attribute: "to ascribe as a quality or characteristic peculiar to one - n." "a characteristic or quality of a person or thing." (Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Ed, Copyright 1988 by Simon & Schuster. Inc.) You have stated above that "the attributes and nature of God do not change" which is a correct statement. But the rest of what you said is laughable and proves the fallacy of the trinity. One of the attributes of God is the fact He is an omnipresent Spirit which means He cannot exist in only one place at a time. I have explained this definition according to 1 Kings 8:27 previously on this thread. And you yourself have admitted that God cannot change His attributes and nature. So how could an omnipresent co-eternal Son become not omnipresent as you said. This not only proves the contradiction of the trinity but also proves you do not even understand your own trinity doctrine. According to the trinity the pre-existed Son lost His attribute of being omnipresent to become a man. Your argument makes no sense at all to say "if the Son remains the Son while retaining His attributes He remains unchanged". But your trinity version of the Son did change and did not retain His attribute of being omnipresent as you stated. Being a "Son" has nothing to do whatsoever with attribute of character. Like I tried to explain in my infamous "John Doe" analogy; "father" and "son" only describe and refer to roles in relationship to others. In my "John Doe" analogy I stated: John Doe's personality and attributes of character did not change as he assumed the role of "son" to his father and "father" to his own son. John Doe does not have to be divided into separate persons in order to fulfill his roles. If it is possible for John Doe in the natural to fulfill his roles as ONE person why would it be any different for God? This is how it is with God as being ONE omnipresent Spirit. The trinity has divided up the roles God has chosen to describe His relationships to man. To divide God's roles into separate persons is the same thing as dividing John Doe's roles as "father" and "son" in his relationships and calling them separate persons. And your argument from Philippians chapter 2 you used previously on this thread to support the foolish and impossible notion that a pre-eternal omnipresent Son changed His attribute of being omnipresent to became a man is insane. "[Christ Jesus] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name" (Phil 2:5-9) "being in the form of God"... this clearly states the "Son" is a "form" of God not a pre-existed Son who became a man. But the ONE omnipresent eternal Spirit of God manifest as a man. "to be equal with God" ... this clearly states the form of the Son was simply the ONE invisible God manifest in visible form as a man thus retaining His attribute of being full Deity in that form. As I have explained many times before, a "form" of God is not a gnostic illusion but fully God with all His personality in tact except in reduced form and in the case of the role of the "Son" that form was a man. "He humbled Himself" ... This does not imply anything to do with a pre-eternal Son changing His attribute of being omnipresent. This is simply stating that the ONE omnipresent invisible God "humbled" Himself in the visible form. Jesus in the form of a man submitted His humanity in His dual nature to the Divine nature and set the example for believers. Remember the invisible form of God "Father" indwelt the the human form "Son' but also remained "Father" outside that body thereby maintaining His attribute of being omnipresent. Now that is not the case in the trinity which states a pre-existed Son became a human body and did not exist outside that body thus making the Son a limited Being. If a pre-existed Son was no longer omnipresent as a man then He could not have been omnipresent to begin with thus making Him a lessor God in attribute to the Father thus not co-equal. "God hath also highly exalted Him"... This simply states God exalted the visible form of Himself. God wants His people to know Him. God has simply given us a real and personal expression of who He is. "For it pleased the Father that in Him [the Son-human visible form] should all fulness dwell." (Col 1:19) Therefore, God has simply taken on a visible form that mankind can easily recognize and know. But as omnipresent Spirit, God remains outside that form (invisible) and co-exists also in the visible form. No. But since God The Father does indwell me it makes me a "son" the same as it made the human form of God the "Son". The difference with Jesus is the fact He did not have a human father. So in order for us to be The Father in human form as the Son our mothers would had to have overshadowed by the Spirit of God like Mary was. Proper Bible interpretation is based on "precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28: 13). The precept here is God's attribute of being omnipresent. It is an infallible precept that cannot be altered. It is an established precept from which further doctrine can be built upon. You said I am the one who needs to study to rightly divide the Word? And yet you yourself have ignored an established precept which shows you have not yet been "weaned off the milk". I finally got you to admit to this precept. I had to set a snare to do it but it was for the cause of Truth. The Oneness doctrine is a beautiful Truth of who God really is. The trinity on the other hand is a stumbling block to knowing God and leads to more error. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame