Divegeester, explain to me one thing. Why did the Apostle John use the word both in this sentence ?
" . . . he who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9b)
I am not asking you how many Gods there are. Don't reply to what I do not ask.
What I ASK is why the Apostle John referes here to "BOTH the Father and the Son."?
Doesn't that show a distinction between the two ?
And with that could you also speak to the usage of the word "THIER" in Revelation 6:17.
"And they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of THEIR wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6:16,17)
Why does the word of God use the plural pronoun "THIER" above?
And why does the word of God refer to "BOTH the Father and the Son" ?
I am not asking you how many Gods there are. I believe in one God.
No you believe there are three
Three what?
I believe there are three _______.
But I believe there is one God as the Bible says.
It is not that I believe something extra.
You don't believe enough.
Now I just turned on the PC. I will now go back and see if you attemted to explain what I asked about 1 John 5:20.
By the way. I will accept you admiting "I cannot explain this" as an acceptable answer - for now.
That is more honest then just a red thumbs down or ignoring silence imo.
" . . . he who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9b)
Why does the Apostle John refer to "BOTH the Father and the Son"?
" . . . hide us from the face of Him who sits upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; For the great day of their wrath has come, . . . " (Rev. 6:17)
Why does the word of God written refer to plural pronoun "THEIR . . . wrath?"
The words BOTH and THEIR indicate a distinction between the Father and the Son and God and the Lamb.
I said "distinction."
I did not say a "separation."
Modalists and Unitarians, trinitarians do not believe something extra in God's word. Maybe you all don't believe enough.
I have never, not even once, mentioned “Modalism”.
Yea, you never mentioned Modalism as your position because you think only you can put others under your dogmatic magnfying glass and classify them.
You never mention Modalism because you think you're the only one who can sit on a higher examination chair pronouncing classifications on other's beliefs.
Sorry Divegeester. You go under the magnifying glass too buddy.
And Modalism is what the historical church calls your " O SO Unlabelled and
pure theology."
You trot out the three headed statue from Babylonian religion to give creedence to your complaint. Sometimes it is just a little amusing that you think "Somehow, all those trinitarians just seemed to have gotten it wrong. I can easily bring them up to speed." As if more astute minds then ours have [not] long contemplated this matter over the course of church history.
There is one God.
Mysteriously - "We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous."
".
-Removed-Your beliefs reflect modalism; it does not matter that you don't use the word, and it
is no different with the Trinity; it is in scripture it doesn't matter that the Word is used
or not. Having it laid out in scripture in what is written matters, and describing
modalism even though you don't use the word is the same thing.
Think of it no different than a sport. You can describe soccer without ever using
the word, those who know what you are talking about will understand without ever
hearing you say the word.