The Duality -- The Father and The Son (page 11)

fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,

You wrote:

So, the church is founded on Paul and Peter and Matthew and John, etc., and NOT on their inspired teachings? Is that what you are saying? What does that mean? How is the church founded upon imperfect human beings and NOT on their God-breathed inspired teachings?

The answer is in Revelation 21:14 as well as other places: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." I think you can see that there are not twelve teachings. There are twelve men that Jesus called to be his apostles, "imperfect human beings" though they were.

You wrote:

What are you referring to? Do you have a problem with dictionaries and encyclopedias? Would you prefer that people stop using dictionaries and encyclopedias? What "meaning of terms" are you talking about?

I don't think you will find in anything I've written any hint that I have a problem with dictionaries and other reference sources. As for the meaning of terms, I believe one example is provided in what I said up above in my first answer. I want to say this kindly and with as much tact as I can muster, but the plain fact is, Undisfellowshiped, you just don't read the Bible carefully sometimes. I wish I could do something about that, but I can't. That is something you have to work on.

You used Ephesians 2:20 in an effort to prove that the sayings of Jesus are more important than the words of the apostles. My argument with that is that the entire Bible is the word of God and all parts are equally valuable. All of it was breathed of God for a purpose, and we are not to treat any of it lightly. But you continued with your point, despite all the texts I supplied that prove your belief about the Bible is totally wrong. In Ephesians you used bold type to set off the phrase "Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone," as if that proved your point. That was grasping at straws. It comes nowhere near what you believe. It in no way says that the teachings of Jesus are greater than the teachings of the apostles and prophets. As I mentioned, this is something I have against red-letter Bibles: They lead people to believe as you believe, that some portions of the Bible are more important than others. And that's just plain wrong, according to the overwhelming testimony we find in the pages of the Bible.

You believe what you do about the Bible because you believe Jesus is God Almighty and that anything he says as God has to be more important than what anybody else in the Bible has to say. But you also believe that the holy spirit is a member of the "Godhead," and the entire Bible was inspired by the spirit. So it seems very strange to me that you think some of what the third member of the Trinity said is less important than what the second member said.

You wrote:

Not only that, you went so far as to accuse me of twisting the JFB Commentary's words, taking them out of context, and that my belief is a "strange opinion" that the JFB Commentary did not support. You also claimed I was not making God glad by my belief.

How else should I have put it at the moment? The evidence was obvious. You were not reading the Commentary correctly. All it said is that the apostles were "secondary foundations." All it said about their teachings is that they were essentially in agreement. I do indeed think you have a "strange opinion" about the Bible. Millions of us who read the Bible every day have no problem accepting it's every word as being equally valuable for our instruction. But you do not think all of it is equal. You even said the Bible contains "myths" and "endless geneologies" simply as a result of your misreading of another text. The Commentary would in no way support such a belief, and I really do doubt that you make the heart of God glad by making such statements for public consumption.

You wrote:

BUT THEN, after I show you PROOF that the JFB Commentary DOES INDEED support my belief, you then turn around and claim that the JFB Commentary is WRONG, and downgrade the JFB Commentary itself by you make these statements:

But you didn't show me "proof" at all. You showed me the opinions of men just as uninspired as you and I. And I provided a concrete example of where the Commentary is actually wrong because it contradicts the Bible. If any "downgrading" was done, it was the Commentary's intimation that John the Baptist was in the same category as the scribes and Pharisees. Or don't you believe that John got his message from the same source as Jesus got his, as the Bible states? I don't want to rehash the evidence, but I think the Bible is quite clear on this, and obviously the Commentary didn't get it right. I firmly believe more valuable insights come from daily Bible reading than from frequent consulting of Bible reference works.

You wrote:

Frank, YOU are the one who started posting un-inspired Commentaries on this thread -- you quoted, and relied on, the un-inspired commentary from the NIV Study Bible on Psalm 45 to support your belief.

All I can say in my defense is that, yes, I made a brief reference to only a footnote. You yourself called the NIV Study Bible "a good study Bible," and you acknowledged it could possibly be correct though you didn't agree with it. On the other hand, you cut and pasted paragraph after paragraph after paragraph from uninspired sources. I think you are making an issue here over nothing.

At one point I was concerned that you were putting a lot of stock in what the so-called "Early Church Fathers" had written. Years ago I discovered that they are not to be trusted. They sometimes opposed one another's views and even contradicted statements they themselves had made on other occasions.

I remain convinced that the Bible itself is far more trustworthy than the "Early Church Fathers," men who lived decades and even hundreds of years after the Bible was completed.

You wrote:

And, YOU are the one who accused me of wasting time on "trivialities" in the Bible, instead of the "basic" teachings about Jesus and His Father.

You are the one who said the Bible contains myths and trivia that are unworthy of serious study. If you can show me where I myself said there are "trivialities" in the Bible, I'm eager to see it.

I do think you have a tendency to go off in several directions rather than sticking with the topic at hand. I'm not finding fault with that. We all tend to do it, some more, some less.

You wrote:

I request you to stop being hypocritical, and to stop making personal attacks, and I request an apology for you accusing me of twisting the words of the JFB Commentary. It is a logical fallacy to use personal/character attacks.

I don't think I've accused you of being hypocritical, but you're free to say it about me if you wish. And I think you tend to stretch things to the point where you think you are being personally attacked. On the other hand, you did feel more than once the need to apologize for something like not being "as gentle or humble as I should have been in some of my posts." So let's face it, you do it and I do it. Just about everybody does it, especially when we're caught up in the emotion of the moment and we're frustrated with the other guy for seeming so stupid.

I have to admit that I do get disappointed that you so often brush off serious statements in the Bible that contradict your beliefs.

You wrote:

I request that you focus on my statements, and on my reasoning, and on my logic, and on my use of the Scriptures, and I will continue to do the same with you. I have not condemned you or attacked you personally.

How about giving me a little credit for focusing on your statements and then replying to them, something you yourself don't do often enough? Instead of analyzing what I've written, you often introduce new stuff that steers clear of my replies. I'm still waiting for your analysis of my long replies to your long essays, for example.

You have a tendency to write very long essays where you go on and on believing you are making a good point. But actually as I wade through your many lines I find that you frequently misread verses. Often you assume they are saying things they really are not saying.

Sorry, but I have to tell you that this is the way you impress me: You are a person very hung up on the Trinity, even though there is so much testimony in the Bible against. You sometimes agree with the Scriptures, but then later you argue against what they say. For example, you agree with the Bible that God appoints men to serve as his representatives and calls them God. But as soon as we show you from very clear statements in the Bible that this is true of Jesus as well, you just can't accept it.

Another example is your view of Psalm 45:6. Throughout hundreds of years of Jewish history, the Psalm was viewed as a wedding hymn addressed to the Jewish king and his bride. The Jews had no problem in addressing the king as God, just as the judges of the land were viewed as God. But you will not accept that. You feel the holy spirit has told you otherwise. You feel Psalm 45 can apply only to Jesus due to the application given to him in Hebrews. I do not believe the holy spirit revealed anything at all to you regarding Psalm 45. The only thing that has convinced you is your insistence that the Trinity just has to be true. And so you have no problem dismissing the fact that the holy spirit inspired the sons of Korah to compose that Psalm for the king and his bride.

As for being logical and reasonable, how is it logical or reasonable to claim each of the Trinity members is "the Lord" and then contradict that idea by saying the Trinity is only "one Lord"? Such a belief is foolish and silly, clearly an insult to human intelligence. It is little wonder that so many mock the Bible and Christianity when church leaders advocate such nonsense. Trinitarians such as you will say this is a mystery. You've even said, as some sort of way out of your dilemma, that you don't hope to understand everything about God. But there is no dilemma or paradox when we accept the Bible's clear and simple truths about God and Jesus.

I think it's highly illogical that you don't accept the thousands of times where God speaks of himself as "I" and "me". And yet, you will grasp at straws such as the four places in the Old Testament where God uses the word "us". Honestly, do you really believe there is even an inkling of logic in the methods used by Trinitarians to come up with proof for what they believe? It is so illogical that no one can explain it. Most Trinitarians say that only God can comprehend it and that we are not able because we have "finite" minds. These are just excuses for a theory invented by men that some want us to believe came from God. And we are threatened with eternal punishment if we do not believe something we cannot explain or even comprehend! I could say more about how illogical Trinitarians are, but this should suffice.

You wrote:

I thought you wanted a serious Bible discussion, but then you start posting pictures grossly misrepresenting the Trinitarian beliefs.

Don't forget, Undisfellowshiped, that Jesus frequently used illustrations to make his points. The Trinity is so engrained in some people's minds that sometimes a picture or cartoon will help to open their eyes. If you yourself don't benefit from them, I have to tell you that I get lots of private messages from others who ask me to keep 'em comin'. Contrary to what you say, I haven't "grossly misrepresented" a single Trinitarian belief. The fact of the matter is that Trinitarians suffer shame and embarrassment when they see the silliness of their unbiblical beliefs and teachings out there in the open for all to see.

You've told me you don't believe in three Lords, but many Trinitarians do. Either that or they dont really know what they believe. Often, just like JWs, they have to run to their pastor for help. And as I've shown, Trinitarian artists have painted three beings as Lords. Little wonder that so many Trinitarians are all mixed up, and yet some such as you claim that those who expose the Trinity don't really understand it properly!

Frank

Mr. Kim

After reading everything posted so far, the only summary is:

AMAZING!....So many people have eyes and they will not see, so many have ears and they refuse to hear, so many have the ability to think and they refuse to do so. Is it any wonder that this world has so many ignorant people by their own choosing? ---KIM

Post Script:

By the way Frank, You have made an excellent post. I fully agree and support it. .......Carry on!

fjtoth

Mr. Kim: THANKS!

fjtoth

mouthy

You are a person very hung up on the Trinity,

YES THATS ME FRANK!!!!! My two cents

fjtoth

Shouldn’t the Torture and Death Penalty Be Restoredfor Persons Who Reject the Trinity???

The word “Trinity” appears not even once in the entire Bible. That’s a grand total of zero times regardless of the popular translation or version we use.

However, hundreds of years after the Bible was completed, some religious and political men got together and wrote up the Athanasian Creed. In the Creed, they set forth the doctrine of the Trinity, and they laid down the law that anyone, Christian or non-Christian, who doesn’t believe their Creed will enter eternal fire!

Now, the apostles and other early Christians knew nothing about that Creed. It was written long after they had all died. Will those early Christians be resurrected? Jesus said they will, but there is no record that any of them ever used the word “Trinity” in their daily conversations or in letters to friends and others.

If believers in the Athanasian Creed are right, Jesus was wrong, and there will be no resurrection for anybody who lived during the earliest centures of the Christian era! We are made to wonder why Jesus was not more considerate. If only he had thought to use the word “Trinity” at least on a few occasions, his apostles and others might have gotten the hint that maybe this was something they better believe or else! Alas, however, they all died without ever even hearing the name of a doctrine so vital to their resurrection and eternal existence!

There might have been some hope for them if only the compilers of the Athanasian Creed had been around to remind Jesus of this very important matter! How sad!

On the other hand, would they have understood? Many today are also doomed eternally because they just can’t comprehend this teaching of the Athanasian Creed. They just can’t get their minds around the notion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not the same entity, and yet at the same time they are the same entity, namely, God. How sad for them!

Some of them, even when they were bratty little kids, would ask their parents, “How can something not be the same thing and yet be the same thing at the same time?” There was a time when such questioning, at least by grownups, was punishable by torture and death. That was one of the wonderful outcomes due to the Athanasian Creed and similar creeds that followed. But times have changed, and the number of people who question the Trinity is on the rise. Don’t you think it’s time to restore the spirit of the Athanasian Creed? Don’t you think it’s time to reinstate the torture and death penalty for those who reject the Trinity? Hopefully, it’s not too late.

Narkissos

fjtoth and undf'd,

If you fail in proving or disproving the trinity you two might make a good case for eternity...

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

Share this