Calling " Lord, Lord ! "

Which is the greater truth:

Sonship's appeal to semantics or, The Bible stating many many times, "hear of serial the Lord your God in ONE."?

Originally posted by divegeester
Which is the greater truth:

Sonship's appeal to semantics or, The Bible stating many many times, "hear of serial the Lord your God in ONE."?

So John 14;23 is just sonship's semantics ?
So John 17:21 is just my semantics ?

Divegeester,

Should man offer the worship due only to God to any other being ?

Yes or No would suffice.

Originally posted by sonship
Divegeester,

Should man offer the worship due only to God to any other being ?

Yes or No would suffice.

No of course not.

Originally posted by divegeester
No of course not.

But look at the exultant worship of all creation to God and the Lamb - the Redeemer of the Son.

" And I saw, and i heard the voice of many angels around the throne and of the living creatures and of the elders, and their number was ten thousands of ten thousands and thousands of thousands.

Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb who has been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.

And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, i heard saying, To Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.

And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped." (Revelation 5:11-14)

This is ultimate worship rendered to both God upon the throne and the Redeemer God-man - "the Lamb" Jesus Christ. If Jesus the Redeemer is God as you confessed do you not see worship due to God also being rendered to the Lamb with Him ?

Worship to God here is worship to One upon the throne of God and One with Him as the Lamb. It is "to Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb".

Originally posted by sonship
But look at the exultant worship of all creation to God and the Lamb - the Redeemer of the Son.

[quote] " And I saw, and i heard the voice of many angels around the throne and of the living creatures and of the elders, and their number was ten thousands of ten thousands and thousands of thousands.

Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb who has ...[text shortened]... od and One with Him as the Lamb. It is [b]"to Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb".[/b]

Does a person rejecting the trinity doctrine preclude them from being filled with the spirit and therefore (according to your definition), also from salvation?

Yes or no?

Originally posted by divegeester
Does a person rejecting the trinity doctrine preclude them from being filled with the spirit and therefore (according to your definition), also from salvation?

Yes or no?

Is it wrong for all creation to render worship to God Who sits upon the throne AND the Lamb ? (Rev. 5:11-14) .

Yes or No ?

If It is right and good that we worship God Who sits upon the throne and the Lamh then the truth of the Triune God is upheld. Both are worshipped as one God.

Work now as a good dutiful Unitarian to explain that "Him who sits upon the throne AND ... the Lamb" renders wrong - "Hear O israel, the Lord your God is one".

Is the God and the Lamb Who is worshipped there by all creation the Lord God of Israel or not ?

Yes - He is the Lord God of Israel Who is one ?
No - He is not the Lord God of Israel Who is one ?

Which Divegeester ?

Originally posted by sonship
Is it wrong for all creation to render worship to God Who sits upon the throne AND the Lamb ? [b](Rev. 5:11-14) .

Yes or No ?

If It is right and good that we worship God Who sits upon the throne and the Lamh then the truth of the Triune God is upheld. Both are worshipped as one God.

Work now as a good dutiful Unitarian to explain that ...[text shortened]... Israel Who is one ?
No - He is not the Lord God of Israel Who is one ?

Which Divegeester ?

Sonship, your inability, or in fact refusal, to answer a simple question about the consequences of rejecting the trinity doctrine is your problem, not mine.

Originally posted by divegeester
Sonship, your inability, or in fact refusal, to answer a simple question about the consequences of rejecting the trinity doctrine is your problem, not mine.

You did not ask about mere consequences. You demanded a binary Yes or No are they saved if they disagree with me.

I think you changing the nature of your original demand.

I do believe I spoke to hindrances to the growth in life for not appreciating the three-oneness of God.

I think you may be subtly re-forming your question.
You originally did not ask about mere consequences.
You demanded to know consequences in definite terms of being saved or lost.

I wish you put half the effort into decent analysis of the relevant passages as to pretending you have a gotcha question (which isn't).

First John is the epistle revealing the unhealthy condition of those who deny some aspect of the total revelation of who Christ is. He says that they have an antichrist spirit.

I do not know for certain if Checkbaiter is saved or not. But I do know that in denying that Jesus is God incarnate he renders a real shortage of spiritual growth taking place because that is in principle, an attitude of an antichrist.

I believe that you also display an attitude of denying some aspect of Christ. This denial is not about God being incarnate in Jesus Christ. I think you confess that. But you seem to not teach "the Father and the Son" as the true God.

The damage or loss to your own spiritual life, I believe, is witnessed in the apparent coldness of your attitude about Christ praying in the garden for you TO the Father.

"Just meditating there." is your cool Unitarian reaction.
I would say that these are not good consequences for you fighting against "the Father and the Son" in the aspect of them being Two.

Tell us more about this MEDITATING you say Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane on the morning before He poured out His blood for your sins.

Do you also find God the Son was merely "meditating" when He offered up that mighty prayer in John 17 ?

Explain in your next post. Do you believe in the Father and the Son? Or is it for you the Father and then the Son in a Modalistic manner.

Modalism is the opposite error to Tritheism.

Originally posted by sonship
You did not ask about mere consequences. You demanded a binary Yes or No are they saved if they disagree with me.

I think you changing the nature of your original demand.

I do believe I spoke to hindrances to the growth in life for not appreciating the three-oneness of God.

I think you may be subtly re-forming your question.
You originally ...[text shortened]... Father and then the Son in a Modalistic manner.

Modalism is the opposite error to Tritheism.

I'm getting bored to be honest.

Originally posted by sonship
You did not ask about mere consequences. You demanded a binary Yes or No are they saved if they disagree with me.

I think you changing the nature of your original demand.

I do believe I spoke to hindrances to the growth in life for not appreciating the three-oneness of God.

I think you may be subtly re-forming your question.
You originally ...[text shortened]... Father and then the Son in a Modalistic manner.

Modalism is the opposite error to Tritheism.

How can you say I didn't ask you about consequences..?! The question I've amend you 20 times is about salvation based on either accepting or rejecting the trinity. For you to ask this just underlines your inability to process disagreement or maybe your intellectual dishonesty.

Divegeester, you hopefully will next put some meat on your "Jesus was just meditating" in the garden of Gethsemane view.


I mean some explanation aside from repeating "Hear O israel the Lord your God is one"

Write a substantial paragraph. Don't link me to someone else's discussion.

Originally posted by divegeester
How can you say I didn't ask you about consequences..?! The question I've amend you 20 times is about salvation based on either accepting or rejecting the trinity. For you to ask this just underlines your inability to process disagreement or maybe your intellectual dishonesty.

If you are superior in your honesty then with a straight face explain Jesus merely meditating on the night He agonized unto the Father on our behalf.

So I am not honest. SHOW US then your honesty in contrast.

How can you honestly say the prayers of Christ God incarnate, to the Father, God in heaven, were merely the meditations of Jesus.

Show me your honestly then and explain the meditating there.

If I suffer from inability for something, show me your ability to explain the prayer of the Son of God as only meditating.

I am probably not going to fish back to former posts over the last couple of days to prove to you that I said none appreciation of the triune nature of God would not be a blessing but might hinder spiritual progress.

I did write it.
That WAS dealing with CONSQUENCES for not seeing the Trinity.
That was not a binary Yes or No, such a contrarian is or is not saved, which is what you thought to press again and again.

I always understood your usage of the word salvation in that repeated question to mean eternal life and eternal redemption.

I think your posts have borne witness to the fact that you have not been too blessed by clinging to Unitarian anti-Trinity teaching. I don't think it has done much to warm your heart towards God.

Questions about the love of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit were evaded strongly.

Divegeester - Jesus merely meditating on the night He is betrayed. WORK ON THAT.

Jesus was ,meditiating so hard that drops of sweat were with blood coming from His agonizing speaking to His Father.

Work on that divegeester. Work on that. Tell us about His prayer just being meditating.

Originally posted by sonship
Divegeester - Jesus merely [b]meditating on the night He is betrayed. WORK ON THAT.

Jesus was ,meditiating so hard that drops of sweat were with blood coming from His agonizing speaking to His Father.

Work on that divegeester. Work on that. Tell us about His prayer just being meditating.[/b]

How many time's do I need to ask that you stop conflating the consequences of rejecting the trinity doctrine with the veracity of the doctrine itself.

It's like talking to a 5 year old.