Oakspear

:huh: We shouldn't...it wasn't my intention to convey that...sorry if I was unclear. My point is that neither the Trinitarian nor the Unitarian position is unassailable, and that both appear to gloss over verses that don't match their theology. Good logical explanation, but that's still your opinion, not a clear scripture on the subject. I suspect that such an animal does not exist.

Okay trinitarians, I agree that there are several places in the bible where Jesus is referred to as God (the verse in Hebrews and the statement by Thomas "My Lord and My God") and others where the implication is that he is God, or at least possesses qualities assumed to be God's exclusively. I also agree that unitarian, or at least Wierwille's, explanation of these verses is contrived to fit the unitarian position. What verses, or at least sections of scripture, explain how God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills and natures, how one "person" (the son) can be fully God and fully man, etc. I know what trinitarians in general believe and how they explain it, but what does the bible say about it? My opinion is that there are contradictions. Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?

I thought that your post seemed like a Watchtower article...and sure enough: http://www.watchtower.org/e/kn37/article_01.htm

Some of us look at doubting and questioning as a virtue, rather than a vice.

Okay, gotcha. I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here. I don't worship the god of the bible, no many how many "persons" he is supposed to have. I'm just trying to encourage rational discussion. Sounds like you are too. I think we're saying the same thing...pretty much Invisible Dan has a lot of this stuff at the front of his brain, but "the whole church" didn't agree on very much until what became known as the orthodox crowded out the otehr groups. You're right, everyone else who disagrees is wrong. Gotcha. The rest of you just shut up and let starbird tell us what the bible says

Part of what Wierwille used to explain "believing", which he used to explain the "law of believing" was to make "faith" and "believing" two separate and distinct things. They are two English words translated from the same Greek word. He made a distinction where there was none and built a doctrine on it.

...and from a "the bible is the Word of God" point of view, if either side can demonstrate that something can be found in the bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to an individual. I would say that any number of Christian beliefs "don't make sense" but are believed just because one chooses to believe what the bible says. While my personal opinion is that the unitarian position can more easily be supported by the bible than the trinitarian, Trinitarians do back up their arguments with scripture and unitarians often include in their arguments misrepresentations or oversimplifications of what trinitarians believe.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you rephrase? What I mean is, there's always the possibility that something "doesn't make sense" because we just don't understand it, not because there is something inherrantly wrong with it.

Sure, but everybody says that they have an accurate knowledge, and their are countless differences among these "accurate" doctrines Many do, many also do not accept that the bible is a source of accurate knowledge. the bible says to read the bible, therefore we should read the bible. And who gets to choose who is worshipping correctly and who is not? You haven't convinced me. And you probably haven't been around long enough to know where i stand on the bible and it's god.

I'm going to break you down into paragraphs so I can read it better: "one faith...one god" accurate knowledge - a protection: doing gods will requires an accurate knowledge of both god and jesus christ. such knowledge leads to everlasting life. surely then, all of us will want to take seriously the matter of gaining accurate knowledge from gods word the bible. the bible encourages us to increase in the knowledge of god and his purposes. {ephesians 4:13} {philippians 1:9} {colossians 1:9} such knowledge is a protection against contamination of our worship. the apostle paul spoke of a certain spirit creature who pretends to be an "angel of light" {2 corinthians 11:14} thus disguised this spirit creature - satan - tries to mislead us into doing things contrary to gods will. other spirit creatures associated with satan have also been polluting peoples worship for paul said: "the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons not to god" {1 corinthians 10:20} likely many have thought they were worshiping in the right way, although they were not doing what god wanted. they were being mislead into unclean false worship. these enemys of god {satan & his demons} have definately been polluting mankinds worship. unless we are careful we may do something un-acceptable to god. e.g the apostle john fell at the feet of an angel "to worship him" but the angel warned: be careful! do not do that! all i am is a fellow slave of you and your brothers who have the work of witnessing to jesus. worship god.{rev 19:10} do you therefore see the need to make sure that your worship is not contaminted by any kind of idolatry? {1 corinthians 10:14}

Aha! Something else that I never really thought about!If Eve's first step down was to "consider" (basically she was listening), what about Jesus in the wilderness with The Devil? Didn't he listen as well?

No disrespect intended, but why does something need to make sense to be true?

I thought the accepted spelling was "youse" Is NJ Refuge a place? Kind of like a retreat? Or one of those wildlife parks?

I think that I took some of those pictures!

Click on the "reply" button at the bottom of the post that you want to quote. You can end a quote (like I did by quoting just the beginning of your post) by placing /quote in brackets at the end. Start a new quote by placing

I'll take damnable heresies for 400!

No, there's quite a bit more to it. Aide from the fact that not everybody here even accepts the bible as divinely inspired, let alone inerrant, even among the bible fans there's a difference of opinion as to what it means. Answers like yours are usually a feeble attempt to end discussion, not encourage it. Is that the New World Translation that I see? How're things at the JWO board? Of course you do So you can't learn anything from what is discussed here? Well, that's what some of us are doing anyway So nice to be where you are spiritually. Until you say that it's God's opinion, not yours.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I have no problem with civilly disagreeing.

:o You weren't being blunt just then? -_- Maybe I am. Can you cut and paste a quote to show me where I am doing that? What I am attempting to do is show how Trintarians and Unitarians take contradictory verses and massage them to fit into their theology. Okay! Right. Trinitarians are sometimes accused of worshipping three gods, but Trinitarians themselves do not see it that way. Yes, Trinitarians believe that this is clear. Yup, I understand that Trinitarians believe that.Here's my point: I don't see that the bible clearly makes the case either way. If it was clear, we wouldn't have contradictions, apparent or actual. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one in essence, but is comprised of three persons (or personas), or as some religions would put it, aspects. But you don't see that laid out anywhere in one place in the bible. Those who formulated and formalized the doctrine of the Trinity took things that they saw in the bible, like Jesus being referred to as God, as one with God, as a creator, and attempted to harmonize these sections with places where Jesus' and God's wills are distinct and opposite, where no man has seen God, where God is declared not to be a man, ad infinitum. Add in the multiple ways that the term "holy spirit" is used for extra flavor. Wierwille (as well as others) didn't like the way that the Trinitarians explained it. They took the same contradictions and explained them away in a different manner. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes I know, they came up with an "explanation" that reconciles the contradiction.

I've put dependence on "God" behind me and I'm doing pretty well. better than when I was a fan of ol' Jehovah most who know me would say

If the bible's so uncomplicated, why do we have thousands of denominations?

No matter which side of the Trinity debate one finds oneself on, there are some verses that must be "explained". These verses are (among other things) referred to as "unclear" or "apparent contradictions". This tells me that neither position is as clear cut and unassailable as its adherants think it is. Unitarians have to "explain" why several verses clearly call Jesus "God". Trinitarians have to "explain" things like Jesus clearly having a separate will from "The Father". Both sides, in addition to trotting out their favorite scriptures, appeal to logic that is often circular and take pot shots at strawmen. Wierwille tortured the rules of grammar and twisted definitions to make his version "fit". Early Christians devised elaborate theologies to prop up their thoughts on the matter. Sometimes a non-Trinitarian will point out that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the bible. Neither does "Law of Believing" or "Sonship Rights". As someone who does not believe that the bible is inerrant, I have no trouble believing that there will be contradictions in it. Different people had differing views of who Jesus was and what he accomplished. They didn't consult each other before penning their contributions to the canon.

duplicate post

I never made it into residence, although I had been accepted into the 13th Corps. I couldn't get my money together so that was that. I applied because I saw it as the "next step" in service within the context of TWI.