I’m aware of what you believe and why you believe it, there is no need to write long convoluted html laden blogs about it.
I don't mind writing more or using html.
I don't need you to tell me when and when not to write.
The bedrock of the godhead is explained to you countless times, god it ONE.
You deny the trinity.
It should not be denied.
Of course your version of the definition of trinity is actually tritheism.
Everything else you have be taught and adopted which surrounds that bedrock is made up stuff to support a man made doctrine which you call “triune” yet another term which appears nowhere in the bible.
But "We will come to him and make an abode with him" IS in the bible.
I was a college student.
I was a bachelor.
I am a married man.
That is three "manifestations" of me if you will.
I don't refer to the three as "We".
I stand on the bedrock of the word, you stand on manufactured ideas designed to fit in with early pagan notions of three-headed gods.
No you stand on a heretical notion that calls for demoting the Son of God to be a temporary manifestation. This is the price you pay for disbelief that that the three _________ of the Godhead are co-existing, co-eternal.
You have to grab one verse and construct on it an elaborate scheme robbing the eternality of the Son of God.
Ie. You say the kingdom of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is eternal BUT HE IS NOT !
Ie. You say the life who the Son said He is John 14:6 is eternal but HE IS NOT !
These are heretical notions.
You say Christ hands over the kingdom and is forever afterward out of being a manifestation of God.
What does Christ say? He says He became dead and is alive forever and ever.
If He will no longer exist then He cannot be alive forever and ever.
If the Son hands over and goes into oblivion or has no more "office" then He lies by saying "I am living forever and ever" (Rev. 1:18)
He would say that He is only living until He hands over His eternal kingdom to His God and Father.
I reject your temporary manifestation of the office of the Son completely.
@divegeester saidThere is no dishonesty being practiced by me in this debate.
@sonship
Until you explicitly answer my question about your understanding of my belief regarding the godhead I will suspend these pointless interactions with you. I’m sick of your dishonesty in pretending you don’t understand.
But go ahead and suspend further exchanges with me on this thread and on any other I post in you wish. I don't hold that against you. I'd like to not argue endlessly with you either.
On another thread you said something to the effect that you doubted my mental capacities (something like that). Go ahead with that attitude. Lots of people quite more intelligent then myself over the centuries have admitted the mystery of God's incarnation and triune being.
Though you might not care, I think it would be interesting to some perhaps to speak more of what other Christians have written about the triune God in church history. You don't care. But I may open a thread given solely to what others have written about the Triune God in church history.
@sonship saidYou keep putting up arguments against straw men representations of what I believe about the godhead.
On another thread you said something to the effect that you doubted my mental capacities (something like that). Go ahead with that attitude.
Now you either do this dishonesty, by deliberately pretending you don’t know what it is a believe, or you have serious mental deficiency in terms of comprehension. Because I have told you dozens and dozens of times exactly what I believe and why.
@divegeester saidAm I making a strawman argument when I understand you to be saying the office of the Son of God goes AWAY after the millennial kingdom?
You keep putting up arguments against straw men representations of what I believe about the godhead.
Now you either do this dishonesty, by deliberately pretending you don’t know what it is a believe, or you have serious mental deficiency in terms of comprehension. Because I have told you dozens and dozens of times exactly what I believe and why.
That's what I understand you to be saying.
Am I making a strawman argument when I understand you to be saying the Son praying to the Father does not mean two distinct persons are involved?
I don't believe either of these two understands which I object to on biblical grounds are a strawman argument.
I don't need to erect a strawman argument to knock it down pretentiously.
I need merely to show scriptures which reveal the Son is eternal and the Father and the Son are not only God but two distinct persons at the same time.
I only need to show why TRI - UNE is good way the church old that fought the battles to protect the whole truth was forced to arrive at such a word.
@divegeester saidYes, I think so.
@sonship
Are you, or are you not, aware of what my belief is about the godhead?
Are you aware of why I point out the scriptures that I do?
@divegeester saidYou can take it any way you want.
You either are, or you aren’t.
Which is it?
@divegeester
If there is something you expressed which you think I ignored, did not respond to yet, or are pretending to not understand, you have opportunity to tell me WHAT it is.
It is possible that some post I didn't see or have not directly replied to.
I understand that you are against tritheism as I also do not believe in three
Gods.
@sonship saidHere’s the question for you yet again. It’s a simple question which, if you are honest enough to answer, will prevent you from being dishonest and pretending you don’t know what I believe and making this silly comments.
@divegeester
I understand that you are against tritheism as I also do not believe in three Gods.
Are you, or are you not, aware of what my belief is about the godhead?