Aineo wrote:
You really need to read what I post. I addressed your "one flesh" argument. A married couple is "one flesh" until they divorce or die. It is a temporary "compound unity" and is also an analogy of what marriage is all about.
i can't believe you're still arguing this. please answer this for me:
in God's sight are the two "One Flesh" while here on earth?
As to Proverbs 8 and what I posted here is your response
i said i hastily responded for ASSUMING that you were trying to say that Proverbs 8 was talking about Christ being wisdom. i never said i accept Proverbs 8 as an MP. please stop misunderstanding everything. it's making dialogue difficult.
As to the Son being the "logos" if you have read all the threads dealing with the Trinity I have posted more than once that the "logos" is the verbalization of God's predetermined plan for the salvation of mankind. Since thoughts precede words what you see as a contradiction in my pasts is simply your interpretation of what I post.
no it's not. this is what you just said:
God's word was the first-born (first to come into existence) of all creation (Colossians 1:15) or God's used His spoken logos to create.
see? before you agreed that the Logos could be called God because it was His plan or "thought" and that the thoughts of someone are pretty much that person (which means in God's case that THAT thought of God's would have existed from all eternity, i.e. would NOT have "come into existence"). you're inconsistent.
Now as to your response concerning Jesus being the seed of the woman see Genesis 3:15 and the seed of Abraham see Genesis 22:18. There is not one Scripture that states the Messiah is to be from the "seed" of God. Mary was not impregnated with a human "seed", she was impregnated by the power of God when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.
once again, an argument ad ignorantium. however, God overshadowing Mary and impregnating her, sounds like His "seed" to me.
I am pleased you agree that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN since that is what Scripture makes clear.
i've said that a bunch of times before. why are you so pleased this time?
However, Scripture never even alludes to Jesus being God.
i just demonstrated how Revelations does. i've also mentioned Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 10:12, John 1:1, John 10:30, Philipians 2:6-8, Hebrews 1:8 and others. you just desparately misinterpet their plain meaning because of what you already believe.
In fact if you accept the word "one" to mean "one" then Scripture is clear there is but one God, the Father.
one DOES mean one. but in what sense? your question-begging. you assume automatically your position (that "one" precludes plurality) and then say it CAN'T include a plurality within that "one". THAT'S question-begging.
Other than Thomas' excited utterance in John 20:28 no other verse states Jesus is God.
look how you even expalain that away: "excited utterance". the very fact that you have to qualify that statement in such a way is proof of what the verse clearly is saying. did Thomas make a mistake? he wasn't rebuked for it. what would you do if someone called you Lord and God? would you correct them?
And when you understand Hebrew culture you would understand that Thomas' utterance can be understood as the Son being honored as the Father's anointed King and heir.
you tell me my interpretations are wrong, but then come with crazy stretches like that???
What Scripture does tell us is the Son is the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of God's nature, not His substance.
John 1:1. "The Word
WAS God."
You and Believer keep posting I do not understand the Trinity, which is false.
then why do you keep misrepresenting it?
I do understand the Trinity and have come to reject this traditional doctrine based on every word that procedes from the mouth of God. You both keep appealing to the majority of professed Christians as proof this doctrine is true.
once again i have to call you a liar. i don't appeal to authority. i know it's a foolish argument and proves nothing. don't put me into the same category as Believer. don't confuse his/her arguments with mine.
But if the majority ruled then we would all be Catholics since Catholicism is by far the largest group of professed Christians. If you believe in a pre-trib rapture, OSAS, Calvin's 5 points, and all other non-Catholic doctrines you are in the minority.
this is a misnomer because i don't use the argument. you're setting up strawmen again. please quit.
From Matthew through Revelation the Son is portrayed as subject to God and God's servant.
correct. He became obedient to the will of the Father. see? you don't understand the Trinity and all that it entails.
The Son is not omniscient, which is just one of the attributes of God not shared with the Son.
yes He is. i showed that He was, and under what CONDITIONS (His earthly manifestation) He wasn't.
Neither Peter, John, Paul, James, or Jude disagrees with the above. None of the NT authors refers to Jesus as God.
John 1:1, ; Philipians 2:6-8, Hebrews 1:8; Revelations 1.
Men from the 2nd century forward have interpreted select Scriptures and tried to redefine some words to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity.
nah. the Bible teaches that Jesus is Divine.