What!? Not Talk About the Trinity ?

Originally posted by divegeester
The question has been dodged and I fully expected you to dodge it, which is why i keep asking it 🙂

What a waste. But its your life and your time.

Originally posted by sonship
What a waste. But its your life and your time.

Your refusal to answer my question is noted sonship.

You challenged my to address what I term as your "strange beliefs", I am doing that. If you are unable to succinctly explain the consequences of your beliefs, or of people rejecting your beliefs, then that is your problem not mine and it is your life your and time you are wasting.

I suspect the you believe that a person rejecting your version of the trinity precludes them from salvation because they could not possibly reject your teaching and still be filled with the spirit. You just won't admit it.

This is sectarianism and error.

Originally posted by divegeester

On to the problem at hand:

The pre-existence of Christ is evident. You cannot say that the world was made through Christ only after He was born. That makes no sense. So for Christ to be the One through whom the universe was made, of course He has to be in pre-existence to the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary.

" God having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets,

Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, THROUGH WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE UNIVERSE;

Who being the effulgence of His glory and the impress of His substance and upholding all things by the word of His power, having made purification of sins sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:1-3)

This wonderful Person had to pre-exist His being born, making purification for sins, and sitting at the right hand of the heavenly Majesty, if it is through Him that the universe was made.

Does the Unitarian attempt to teach that only after Jesus Christ was born the universe was made ?

Originally posted by sonship
On to the problem at hand:

The pre-existence of Christ is evident. You cannot say that the world was made through Christ only after He was born. That makes no sense. So for Christ to be the One through whom the universe was made, of course He has to be in pre-existence to the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary.

[quote] [b] " God having spoken of old i ...[text shortened]... Unitarian attempt to teach that only after Jesus Christ was born the universe was made ?

I'm not interested in discussing the topic with you; not because we are poles apart on it, but because you won't even respond to my legitimate questions. To me you come across as being a closed-minded sectarianist who is only interested in blogging his doctrines and those assimilated from Witness Lee.

The "hairdryer" approach doesn't work on me 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester

I'm not interested in discussing the topic with you; ...

That's the topic of the thread.

Do you want me to explicitly tell you that you are not my Christian brother? Is that what you long to hear me say ?

I think if that is what you are asking you should first ask yourself if you feel like you are my Christian brother. You are suppose to know full well where you personally stand with God. You should have assurance of salvation.

If you don't love Him who has begotten you probably do not love those who are begotten of Him.

" Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten of God, and everyone who loves Him who has begotten loves him also who has been begotten of Him." (1 John 5:1)

For you and Rajk999, the more you complain about Witness Lee, at least some readers will ask themselves "Who is this Witness Lee?". And some of those will discover how marvelous a ministry came from this servant of God.

So if you want to misdirect your annoyance and anger (for whatever reason for it) and complain about Witness Lee go right ahead.

The early truth seekers said concerning those who complained about the Christians and their teachers, had their interests roused of some to go ahead and hear what they were teaching.

" But we think it is fitting to hear from you what you think, for concerning this sect it is indeed known to us that it is spoken against everywhere." (Acts 28:22)

I think you are misdirecting your annoyance. Hebrews 1:1-3 proves you wrong on bad teaching that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate. Why misdirect your bothering towards Witness Lee or even me for that matter.

Cut that passage out of your New Testament or change your NT to read whatever you want it to read.

Originally posted by sonship
Do you want me to explicitly tell you that you are not my Christian brother? Is that what you long to hear me say ?

I just want you to answer the question.

This is a debate forum, not a blog.

Originally posted by sonship

Still wriggling. I always know when you sectarian types are on the ropes when the answer is smothered in qualification and obfuscation .

Can you please tell me; is it possible to be filled with the spirit of Christ and reject a clear and fully informed understanding of your version of the trinity?

It's a yes or no answer sonship.

T ...[text shortened]... uirm somehow. Now that it is replied to a second time, at least, we can go on about the Trinity.

This here what you said :

1.) I believe someone might have the Spirit of Christ and propagate errors, false teachings, and heresies. Yes, someone may be terribly confused and damaged by false teachers yet have the Spirit of Christ.

2. ) I believe that just because someone can demonstrate doctrinal agreement with me on the Trinity does not mean that he has the Spirit of Christ. No, just because his doctrinal discussion seems to agree with me point by point is no guarantee that that one has ever received the Spirit of Christ.

3.) I don't believe it is possible for a Christian to always know who is a real believer and who is a false believer, (Matt. 13:24-30) , ie. "have the Spirit of Christ" to be "of Him."

Seems to be a complete 180 from your position for the last few years, of claiming to know for certain that all those who accept Christ with their mouth are saved eternally and will be in the Kingdom of God, and not even God can change that.

Paul is clear that even those with the Spirit of Christ/God can and do fall away:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 KJV)

Those with the Spirit of Christ who displease God/defile themselves will be destroyed. It cannot be more plainly stated.

Originally posted by divegeester
I just want you to answer the question.

This is a debate forum, not a blog.

I answered your question. You don't like my answer for some reason.
As for this Forum ?

Spirituality
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

Take your complaint to the webmaster.

Originally posted by sonship
On to the problem at hand:

The pre-existence of Christ is evident. You cannot say that the world was made through Christ only after He was born. That makes no sense. So for Christ to be the One through whom the universe was made, of course He has to be in pre-existence to the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary.

[quote] [b] " God having spoken of old i ...[text shortened]... Unitarian attempt to teach that only after Jesus Christ was born the universe was made ?

On to the problem at hand:

The pre-existence of Christ is evident. You cannot say that the world was made through Christ only after He was born. That makes no sense. So for Christ to be the One through whom the universe was made, of course He has to be in pre-existence to the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary.

Only Trinitarian bias translates it "world or universe" . The correct translation is "ages" a specific period of time.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

Only Trinitarian bias translates it "world or universe" . The correct translation is "ages" a specific period of time.

Okay, we render this "ages". It does nothing for the Unitarian case.

The Son could not make the ages only after He was born as created in one of them. He would have had to make the ages before any ages were in existence.

Plus the fact that in the same chapter it is the heavens and the "foundation of the earth, and the heavens" as the objects of His creation and not just spans of time:

And, "You in the beginning, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands.

They will perish, but You remain perpetually; and they all will become old like a garment,

And like a mantle You will roll them up, like a garment they will also be changed; but You are the same, and Your years will not fail." (Hebrews 1:10-13)

By rendering "ages" there in verse 2 you've accomplished nothing. Verses 10 through 13 I just quoted all pertain to "the Son".

PS
In case anyone is confused this is not a "personal blog" but a specific conversational reply.

Originally posted by sonship

Only Trinitarian bias translates it "world or universe" . The correct translation is "ages" a specific period of time.

Okay, we render this "ages". It does nothing for the Unitarian case.

The Son could not make the ages only after He was born as created in one of them. He would have had to make the ages before any ages were in exis ...[text shortened]... S
In case anyone is confused this is not a "personal blog" but a specific conversational reply.

For those interested, here is the key section in the REV commentary...

The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal. For the Son to be the “heir” means that there was a time when he was not the owner. The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in all the biblical languages. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner. No one in history ever wrote a will that said, “My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!” If Christ is God, then he cannot be “heir.” The only way he can be an heir is by not being the original owner. That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.

Since aionas means “ages” and not “world,” it is fair to ask in what sense God has given form to the ages through Jesus. The Greek word from which “given form” is translated is poieō, a word with very many meanings. Alone, and in combination with other words, it is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV. Some of the ways poieō is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the “ages” being referred to are the ages after Christ’s resurrection. In verse 2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In verse 3, he then sat at God’s right hand after his resurrection. Verses 5 and 6 also refer to the resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken “in these last days” through His Son, and “given form to” the ages through him. For more information see, One God & One Lord.

Originally posted by sonship
I answered your question. You don't like my answer for some reason.
As for this Forum ?

[b] Spirituality
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

Take your complaint to the webmaster.[/b]

Your dodging the question is noted. It's like discussing something with the JWs 😉

Originally posted by sonship
I answered your question. You don't like my answer for some reason.

You haven't answered the actual question, just posted a lot of obfuscation and danced around it.

As I have completely rejected your interpretation of the godhead including the concept and construct of the trinity as being error; am I precluded from being filled with the spirit of Christ and therefore (according to your definition) also from salvation?

Yes or no, sonship?

Originally posted by checkbaiter

The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal.

One has to heed in what way "equal" is being thought of. Isaiah 9:6 says the "son ... given" is called "eternal Father". Are they equal ?

In one sense they are. And in another sense they may not be.
The "son ... given" is a "born" human child signifying Incarnation.

In that sense we see "eternal Father" clothing His uncreated life in that which is clearly an item of creation - human nature. Briefly though, the point of Christ words was that those on earth were to honor the Son even as they honor the Father Who sent Him. And I do.

" Neither does the Father judged anyone, but has gien all judgment to the Son, In order that all may honor the Son EVEN ... as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the son does not honor the Father who sent Him." ( John 5:23)

I honor God before incarnation as "the First and the Last" (Isaiah 44:6)
After the Word became flesh, lived, died a redemptive death and rose again, i honor the Son as "the First and the Last" (Rev. 1:17) absolutely equally.

At the same time I honor the Father as the emblem of authority,
And I honor the Son as the emblem of submission. This I do in recognition that the Son submitted in obedience to the "greater" One of His Father. (John 14:28)

As you can see it is a nuanced matter. And someone put it well in saying that Unitarians read the New Testament "with one eye closed."

For the Son to be the “heir” means that there was a time when he was not the owner.

Before He was incarnated as a man like you and I, that man was not the owner and can be appointed to be Heir of all things. And today there is a MAN - Who is the Heir of the whole universe - a glorified and exalted man - Jesus Christ. And other men are to be co-heirs with Him.

But, before incarnation, He is the same Person through whom the worlds were and through whom they were made. Since the writer of Hebrews definitely says the foundation of the earth and the stretched out heavens are the works of His hands, He before incarnation, was the owner of them all.

If you connect verses 9 and 10 together as they should be, you will see that the King in the millennial kingdom whose scepter is of righteousness, IS the same Person who laid the foundation of the earth and stretched forth the heavens, ie. the Creator of the universe and its owner.

Verse 9 - "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of exultant joy above You partners."

Verse 10 - And, "You in the beginning , Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands."

The Righteous King, the Son, has His scepter in the millennial kingdom. And He has His human "partners" because being incarnated He has became among men. But He is with more joy anointed because He is their unique Lord and Savior - the Son of Man, the Son of God, the kingly son of David upon the Davidic Messianic throne.

But before His incarnation, human living, death, resurrection, and establishment as Messianic King, a man who loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, He was the One Who laid the foundation of the earth and stretched forth the heavens.

Zechairah 12:1 says that Jehovah laid the foundation of the earth and stretched forth the heavens.

" The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel, Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him. " (Zech. 12:1)

But let's go a little further. Some verses in the OT do hint that this Jehovah God the Creator of the universe will dwell in this created man in whom He created with a spirit.

In Isaiah 66:1,2 it shows God's longing to dwell in oneness with man in whom He has created a spirit.

"Thus says Jehovah, Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool for My feet. Where then is the house that you will build for Me, And where is the place of My rest?

For all these things My hand has made, and so all these things have come into being, declares Jehovah.

But to this kind of man will I look, to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word." (Isaiah 66:1,2)

Here Jehovah God says He created the universe. Though the heavens are His throne and the earth is His footstool, these are not suitable for Him to dwell in as His house for His complete rest.

For a fullest rest and for a most suitable house He will look to dwell in man who is poor in spirit, humble and trembles at His word. This is a heads up that God will become incarnated as the man Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the prototype of that man - that God-man. And He "pitched His tent" or He "tabernacled" among us.

" And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality." (John 1:14)

This is the Heir - the Creator become a man, accomplishing redemption because of His uttermost obedience, and being anointed with exultant joy above the "partners" of other human beings whose nature He too took on.

You must stop reading the Bible "with one eye closed."

Originally posted by sonship

The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal.

One has to heed in what way "equal" is being thought of. [b]Isaiah 9:6 says the "son ... given" is called "eternal Father". Are they equal ?

In one sense they are. And in another sense they may not be.
The "son ... given" ...[text shortened]... n beings whose nature He too took on.

You must stop reading the Bible "with one eye closed."

I shall assume that your reluctance to explain your beliefs is, as I suspected, due to your reticence to admit your sectarianism in regards to your particular PoV of the trinity and how not holding to your particular belief can preclude someone from salvation.

This is one of the "strange beliefs" that I think you have and have been trying to get you to admit to since you asked me "what strange beliefs do you think I have".