Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[ClassicalTeacher]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Understand this. In order for the trinity dogma to work in the minds of Trinitarians, they have to maintain the following belief regarding all three "persons" of the trinity (Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit):

1. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same will .
2. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same power.
3. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same intellect.
4. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same eternity.

Trinitarians are not interested in scriptures that contradict those four assumptions. In other words, they are not interested in being corrected by the Bible because the man-made doctrine means more to them than correction from the scriptures. Keep that in mind as you watch the arguments being used by Trinitarians in this thread. Watch how they reject scriptures that debunk the four assumptions that I listed above. They will do it by various evasive methods. In my next post, I will demonstrate this, beginning with Jac3510's responses thus far.

Well, I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I can't wait for this!!! But, a little word of warning: DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!! It will be just more of the same nonsense and obfuscation. She IS expert at that, I'll give her that much!

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
For the benefit of those reading this thread, let me explain what Jac3510 is doing:

1. By using the strategy that he/she is objecting to what I think instead of what I quoted the Bible as saying, Jac3510 is able to justify--at least in Jac3510's mind--that he/she is rejecting what I think rather than rejecting the Judeo-Christian Bible. Notice Jac3510's strategy below.


TAKEN FROM PAGE 3 OF THIS THREAD (4th post from the bottom of the page):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ow#p141471

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
God is not split up into three persons within a "Godhead," you say? Then what else do you call three separate persons that are in different places at the same time, at least two of them (the Father and the Son) have been quoted talking to one another from different locations, one of them prays to the other one and worships the other one, etc., and then when they feel inclined, they turn around and blend into a single "Godhead"? If that's not an example of one god split up into three different persons, then I don't know what is.

What makes you think the three Persons are "in different places at the same time"?

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
As you can see, Jac3510 objects to my comment that the three "persons" of the trinity are capable of being in different locations simultaneously. Apparently, Jac3510 needs to keep all three "persons" in the same location in order to justify, in his/her mind, that they are the same god. (I have debated Trinitarians at other websites who came up with similarly ridiculous claims that they could never prove with scriptures.) Notice how this unfolds, with Jac3510 using the: "it's what you think" strategy. Jac3510 will continue using the "it's what you think" strategy even after I quote scripture that confirms what I am saying. So in reality, Jac3510 is not rejecting my words. He/she is actually rejecting scripture. Let's pick up where I left off on the conversation. The portion below is from Page 4 of this thread.


TAKEN FROM PAGE 4 OF THIS THREAD (my very first post on the page):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 6&start=45

What makes you think the three Persons are "in different places at the same time"?

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
So now it's about what I think and not about what the Bible says? You want to drag this out with the usual cat-and-mouse game? Okay. I'll play your little game. Follow the bouncing ball....

Well, you clearly think the Bible says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are in different places. I think it's a perfectly fair question.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Did you notice Jac3510's strategy? I bolded it in light blue above. That was the second time he/she did that. By the time he/she used the "that's what you think" routine for the second time, Jac3510 had had the opportunity to read a scriptural quotation that I presented from Matthew 3:16-17. The scriptural quotation indicated that Jehovah/YHWH (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) were in different locations simultaneously. Below is the scriptural quotation followed by one of my questions to Jac3510 regarding the implication of Matthew 3:16-17. Watch Jac3510 evade my question by means of his/her "it's what you think" routine. The conversation below is from Page 4 of this thread.


TAKEN FROM PAGE 4 OF THIS THREAD (my very first post on the page):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 6&start=45

"{16} After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! The heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him. {17} Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: 'This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.' " (Matthew 3:16-17 -- New World Translation)

QUESTION #1 to JAC3510: Jesus was on earth getting baptized. Matthew 3:17 says Jehovah's voice came from heaven. According to your sense of direction, are earth and heaven the same location? YES or NO?

Heaven and earth are not in the same location. I still don't see why you think that since a voice came from heaven that the Father and the Son are in different places. I really would be interested in the answer to that question.

Folks, do you see what's going on here? You will see more of the same evasive moves taking place in this thread with every Trinitarian that shows up. They refuse to be corrected by the scriptures.


I will give you another example of this type of evasive behavior in a future post.

[Jac3510]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
For the benefit of those reading this thread, let me explain what Jac3510 is doing:

1. By using the strategy that he/she is objecting to what I think instead of what I quoted the Bible as saying, Jac3510 is able to justify--at least in Jac3510's mind--that he/she is rejecting what I think rather than rejecting the Judeo-Christian Bible. Notice Jac3510's strategy below.

Actually, I'm just trying to understand why you think that the Bible says what the Bible says. There's nothing nefarious in the term "you think"--there's no ulterior motive. If you would like, we could just remove the phrase "you think" all the way around. I could ask my question this way:

• Where does the Bible say the three Persons are "in different places at the same time"?

I don't really expect an answer from you, which is fine. You've made quite a habit of not answering other people's questions. But maybe you'll surprise me!

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
As you can see, Jac3510 objects to my comment that the three "persons" of the trinity are capable of being in different locations simultaneously. Apparently, Jac3510 needs to keep all three "persons" in the same location in order to justify, in his/her mind, that they are the same god. (I have debated Trinitarians at other websites who came up with similarly ridiculous claims that they could never prove with scriptures.) Notice how this unfolds, with Jac3510 using the: "it's what you think" strategy. Jac3510 will continue using the "it's what you think" strategy even after I quote scripture that confirms what I am saying. So in reality, Jac3510 is not rejecting my words. He/she is actually rejecting scripture. Let's pick up where I left off on the conversation. The portion below is from Page 4 of this thread.

Actually, I object to the notion that any of the Persons are located anywhere at all. I hold that all three Persons are omnipresent. I take it that you accept the Bible's teaching that God--to be clear, the "guy" Jesus prayed to--is omnipresent. Put simply, that just means He is everywhere. There is nowhere He is not. So God is in heaven. He is also on earth. He's even in Sheol/Hades. He is all around us, everywhere, filling all places and all times.

What I'm saying is this: that is not only true of the Father, but it is also true of the Son. So, again, you keep talking about Matthew 3:16-17 . . . I want to know how that passage teaches that the Father and the Son are not in the same place. If you complain less about the terms "I think" and just talk about what Scripture says, we would get a lot further a lot faster.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Did you notice Jac3510's strategy? I bolded it in light blue above. That was the second time he/she did that. By the time he/she used the "that's what you think" routine for the second time, Jac3510 had had the opportunity to read a scriptural quotation that I presented from Matthew 3:16-17. The scriptural quotation indicated that Jehovah/YHWH (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) were in different locations simultaneously. Below is the scriptural quotation followed by one of my questions to Jac3510 regarding the implication of Matthew 3:16-17. Watch Jac3510 evade my question by means of his/her "it's what you think" routine. The conversation below is from Page 4 of this thread.

Notice the part I underlined here. I keep asking this question and you keep refusing to answer. How does Matt. 3:16-17 show that the Father and the Son are in different places?

You keep saying it does. Now show me how that is the case, because I don't see it.

Folks, do you see what's going on here? You will see more of the same evasive moves taking place in this thread with every Trinitarian that shows up. They refuse to be corrected by the scriptures.

All that's going on here is you refusing to answer a simple question. The only one being evasive is you.

Again, show me how Matthew 3:16-17 teaches that the Father and the Son are in different locations.

You seem to be of the erroneous opinion that you can just make an assertion without evidence. Unfortunately for you, things don't work like that. If I say, "John 1:1 says that Jesus is God," you will object. You will say that is NOT what it says and you will attempt to show me the "error" of my ways (most likely by appealing to the fact that theos is not preceded by the definite article). Regardless of the argument you employ, the point is that you will not accept a mere assertion that "Verse X teaches doctrine Y." If I say a verse teaches something, I have to show HOW that verse teaches it.

The same thing holds true with you. You say that Matt. 3:16-17 teaches that the Father and the Son are in different locations simultaneously. I'm telling you that you need to demonstrate how that is the case, since classical Trinitarian theology says that the Father is omnipresent and the Son is omnipresent. They were not in different locations, and the verse doesn't say that they were. It only says that a voice came from heaven and spoke to Jesus on earth. Well, that's fine -- when God spoke to Moses in the burning bush, did that mean He was not in heaven in that moment? Or when God spoke to Adam in Eden, does that mean He wasn't in heaven at that moment? Of course not. God is everywhere. He is everywhen. Our perception of where His voice "comes from" doesn't mean He is "located" here as opposed to being located "there." Precisely the same is true in the case of Matt. 3:16-17. The Father is everywhere and so is the Son. Thus, my original claim--which is the claim that all Trinitarians have made for 1600 years--stands completely unaffected by your unsupported assertion.

So, A2E, are you actually going to answer questions directed at you, or are you going to continue your practice of ignoring them and burning down straw men? You really ought to stop doing that. As a very wise person once said, "You're only hurting yourself."

Bottom line: stop stalling. Answer the question. If you won't, I and everyone on this board will take it for what it is: a concession on your part that you can't and to the argument as a whole.

[ClassicalTeacher]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
For the benefit of those reading this thread, let me explain what Jac3510 is doing:

1. By using the strategy that he/she is objecting to what I think instead of what I quoted the Bible as saying, Jac3510 is able to justify--at least in Jac3510's mind--that he/she is rejecting what I think rather than rejecting the Judeo-Christian Bible. Notice Jac3510's strategy below.

Actually, I'm just trying to understand why you think that the Bible says what the Bible says. There's nothing nefarious in the term "you think"--there's no ulterior motive. If you would like, we could just remove the phrase "you think" all the way around. I could ask my question this way:

• Where does the Bible say the three Persons are "in different places at the same time"?

I don't really expect an answer from you, which is fine. You've made quite a habit of not answering other people's questions. But maybe you'll surprise me!

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
As you can see, Jac3510 objects to my comment that the three "persons" of the trinity are capable of being in different locations simultaneously. Apparently, Jac3510 needs to keep all three "persons" in the same location in order to justify, in his/her mind, that they are the same god. (I have debated Trinitarians at other websites who came up with similarly ridiculous claims that they could never prove with scriptures.) Notice how this unfolds, with Jac3510 using the: "it's what you think" strategy. Jac3510 will continue using the "it's what you think" strategy even after I quote scripture that confirms what I am saying. So in reality, Jac3510 is not rejecting my words. He/she is actually rejecting scripture. Let's pick up where I left off on the conversation. The portion below is from Page 4 of this thread.

Actually, I object to the notion that any of the Persons are located anywhere at all. I hold that all three Persons are omnipresent. I take it that you accept the Bible's teaching that God--to be clear, the "guy" Jesus prayed to--is omnipresent. Put simply, that just means He is everywhere. There is nowhere He is not. So God is in heaven. He is also on earth. He's even in Sheol/Hades. He is all around us, everywhere, filling all places and all times.

What I'm saying is this: that is not only true of the Father, but it is also true of the Son. So, again, you keep talking about Matthew 3:16-17 . . . I want to know how that passage teaches that the Father and the Son are not in the same place. If you complain less about the terms "I think" and just talk about what Scripture says, we would get a lot further a lot faster.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Did you notice Jac3510's strategy? I bolded it in light blue above. That was the second time he/she did that. By the time he/she used the "that's what you think" routine for the second time, Jac3510 had had the opportunity to read a scriptural quotation that I presented from Matthew 3:16-17. The scriptural quotation indicated that Jehovah/YHWH (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) were in different locations simultaneously. Below is the scriptural quotation followed by one of my questions to Jac3510 regarding the implication of Matthew 3:16-17. Watch Jac3510 evade my question by means of his/her "it's what you think" routine. The conversation below is from Page 4 of this thread.

Notice the part I underlined here. I keep asking this question and you keep refusing to answer. How does Matt. 3:16-17 show that the Father and the Son are in different places?

You keep saying it does. Now show me how that is the case, because I don't see it.

Folks, do you see what's going on here? You will see more of the same evasive moves taking place in this thread with every Trinitarian that shows up. They refuse to be corrected by the scriptures.

All that's going on here is you refusing to answer a simple question. The only one being evasive is you.

Again, show me how Matthew 3:16-17 teaches that the Father and the Son are in different locations.

You seem to be of the erroneous opinion that you can just make an assertion without evidence. Unfortunately for you, things don't work like that. If I say, "John 1:1 says that Jesus is God," you will object. You will say that is NOT what it says and you will attempt to show me the "error" of my ways (most likely by appealing to the fact that theos is not preceded by the definite article). Regardless of the argument you employ, the point is that you will not accept a mere assertion that "Verse X teaches doctrine Y." If I say a verse teaches something, I have to show HOW that verse teaches it.

The same thing holds true with you. You say that Matt. 3:16-17 teaches that the Father and the Son are in different locations simultaneously. I'm telling you that you need to demonstrate how that is the case, since classical Trinitarian theology says that the Father is omnipresent and the Son is omnipresent. They were not in different locations, and the verse doesn't say that they were. It only says that a voice came from heaven and spoke to Jesus on earth. Well, that's fine -- when God spoke to Moses in the burning bush, did that mean He was not in heaven in that moment? Or when God spoke to Adam in Eden, does that mean He wasn't in heaven at that moment? Of course not. God is everywhere. He is everywhen. Our perception of where His voice "comes from" doesn't mean He is "located" here as opposed to being located "there." Precisely the same is true in the case of Matt. 3:16-17. The Father is everywhere and so is the Son. Thus, my original claim--which is the claim that all Trinitarians have made for 1600 years--stands completely unaffected by your unsupported assertion.

So, A2E, are you actually going to answer questions directed at you, or are you going to continue your practice of ignoring them and burning down straw men? You really ought to stop doing that. As a very wise person once said, "You're only hurting yourself."

Bottom line: stop stalling. Answer the question. If you won't, I and everyone on this board will take it for what it is: a concession on your part that you can't and to the argument as a whole.

You'll never get an answer from her. "I'll answer that later" is her "get out of jail" card. Also, she seems to not understand that you cannot attribute finite properties/characteristics (human) to an infinite being (God being infinite in all ways). I don't think she understands the concept and maybe that's why jw's don't believe that Jesus is not just the Son of God, but God equal to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. Who knows? I think she thinks she's smarter than the rest of us, but she comes off as having less intellectual prowess than she wants everyone to think. Sad.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
As a reminder, the dogma of a 3-in-1 god is maintained by Trinitarians with the following assumptions:

1. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same will .
2. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same power.
3. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same intellect.
4. Each of the three "persons" of the trinity must have the same eternity.


Whenever scriptures from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian, debunks those four assumptions, the typical Trinitarian will jump through hoops, contradict him/herself, and do whatever is necessary to avoid being corrected by the Bible. I will use conversations with Jac3510 to demonstrate this.

Jac3510 started off claiming that all three "persons" of the trinity have the same will and the same intellect.


TAKEN FROM PAGE 3 OF THIS THREAD (2nd post from the top of the page):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ow#p141452

Someone doesn't understand the Trinity (big shock). God is not "split up" to use the words of your first post. God is not a recipe, which is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Spirit. There are not "three gods." There is one God who is three persons. There is one substance. There is one will. There is one intellect. There is one act. There is one essence. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the Persons one from another except their relations: paternity, filiation, and procession. There actually is a fourth relation, which is common spiration, but that relation is common to both Father and Son. Thus, that relation which is called paternity is the Person called the Father; that relation which is called filiation is the Person called the Son; that relation which is called procession is the Person called the Holy Spirit.

Now, watch what happens when Jac3510 is debunked by the very Bible he/she claims to respect.

TAKEN FROM PAGE 3 OF THIS THREAD (my 4th post on the page):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ow#p141462

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
There is one will and one intellect with the Father (Jehovah) and the Son (Jesus Christ), you say? The Bible contradicts you.


DIFFERENT WILLS, JESUS' OWN WORDS:
"saying: 'Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, NOT MY WILL, but yours take place.' " (Luke 22:42)


DIFFERENT INTELLECT, IN JESUS' OWN WORDS:
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
(Matthew 24:36 -- King James Version)

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Remember, Jac1510 claimed the three "persons" have the same will and the same intellect. If that were the case, none of the three "persons" of the trinity should be able to act independent of the other and all three "persons" should know the same things at the same time. Look at what the Bible said above by means of the words of Jesus Christ.

Jesus clearly stated at Luke 22:42 that he is submitting to the will of the Father, indicating he cannot act independent of the Father, and by default, the Father CAN act independent of Jesus. That single verse of scripture debunks the Trinitarian claim that the three "persons" of the trinity have the same will. Similarly, at Matthew 24:36, Jesus Christ states that the Father knows things that he (the Son) does not know. Matthew 24:36 debunks the Trinitarian claim that the three "persons" of the trinity have the same intellect or knowledge.

When I quoted those two verses of scriptures to Jac1510 on Page 3 of this thread, notice how he/she back-pedals and comes up with an entirely new tale.


TAKEN FROM PAGE 3 OF THIS THREAD (4th post from the bottom of the page):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ow#p141471

And you also don't understand the hypostatic union. Jesus, being fully human and fully God, has two wills and two intellects--that of his human nature and that of his divine nature. The doctrine of the Trinity refers only to the divine nature, not the human. The divine will and the divine intellect of Jesus are numerically identical (that is, they are exactly the same, not merely in purpose (as Christians are to have the "same mind"), but rather that they are one and the same) with the will and intellect of the Father and the Spirit.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Did you see what happened? Jac1510 realized from the two scriptures, quoted above, that Jesus and Jehovah do not have the same will and the same intellect. So Jac1510 compensated by changing up his/her argument. Now Jac1510 is telling me there are two wills and two intellects within the same god (since Jehovah and Jesus are actually the same god according to trinitarians). So now we have Jehovah with one will and one intellect, and Jesus Christ with two wills and two intellects.

Now, watch what happens when I call out Jac1510 on his conflicting statements regarding one will and one intellect in the trinity god now changed by him to two wills and two intellects.


TAKEN FROM PAGE 4 OF THIS THREAD (1ST post on the page by Jac3510, at paragraph 5 by Jac3510):
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ow#p141504

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
Making things up as you go, I see. You changed from all three "persons" of the trinity having the same will and the same intellect to now telling me about the "hypostatic union" where there are two different wills and two different intellects--within the very same God.

I maintain exactly what I said. The three Persons of the Trinkty have the same will, intellect, nature, essence, being, act, attributes, etc. They are distinguished only by their relations--see my previous comments about that. The man Jesus, however, had TWO natures. He had His human nature, together with the human nature's will, intellect, etc.; and He had His divine nature, together with its will, intellect, etc. Jesus' divine nature is identical with the nature of the Father and the Spirit. Thus, Jesus' divine will, intellect, etc. were identical to the divine will, intellect, etc. of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. His human intellect, will, etc., however, were not identical to the divine will, intellect, etc., because the human nature is not identical to the divine nature. Jesus' human nature was rather completely and perfectly submissive to His divine nature, which is to say, to the will of the Father (which was in Him perfectly).

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Did you see that? Jac3510 reverted back to the three "persons" having one will and one intellect. Then he again contradicted himself in the very same post (the last one I posted above). He is insisting that Jesus has two wills and two intellects (the portion that I bolded in light blue).

So according to Jac3510, Jesus Christ has the same will and the same intellect as Jehovah when Jesus is in the spirit realm. But when Jesus is in human form, he has a second will and a second intellect. . . . which amounts to two different wills and two different intellects within the same god, no matter which way you cut it. Therefore it still contradicts the trinity dogma which says the Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit have the same will and the same intellect.


What you are observing is a perfect demonstration of what happens when people refuse to be corrected by the scriptures and decide to put human philosophies and pagan ideologies above what is stated in the Bible. This is how Trinitarians maintain the nonsensical belief in a 3-prong god. They make things up as they go while they kick the Bible to the curb.

[RickD]

Alter2Ego, please read this to get an understanding about which you're arguing against:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
If you have any questions, or don't understand, please ask.

I think you need to understand who we believe Christ is, before you argue against what we believe. Your points against Jac just show me that you really don't understand who Christ is according to scripture.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
For the benefit of those reading this thread, let me explain what Jac3510 is doing:

1. By using the strategy that he/she is objecting to what I think instead of what I quoted the Bible as saying, Jac3510 is able to justify--at least in Jac3510's mind--that he/she is rejecting what I think rather than rejecting the Judeo-Christian Bible. Notice Jac3510's strategy below.

Actually, I'm just trying to understand why you think that the Bible says what the Bible says. There's nothing nefarious in the term "you think"--there's no ulterior motive. If you would like, we could just remove the phrase "you think" all the way around. I could ask my question this way:

Where does the Bible say the three Persons are "in different places at the same time"?

I don't really expect an answer from you, which is fine. You've made quite a habit of not answering other people's questions. But maybe you'll surprise me!

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
You know you are lying. I answered you with the scriptures. It's not my problem that you object to what the Bible says and that you want to make it about what I think. That's the strategy you are working with. It's how you are able to bypass what the Bible is saying by insisting that I tell you what I think.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
As you can see, Jac3510 objects to my comment that the three "persons" of the trinity are capable of being in different locations simultaneously. Apparently, Jac3510 needs to keep all three "persons" in the same location in order to justify, in his/her mind, that they are the same god. (I have debated Trinitarians at other websites who came up with similarly ridiculous claims that they could never prove with scriptures.) Notice how this unfolds, with Jac3510 using the: "it's what you think" strategy. Jac3510 will continue using the "it's what you think" strategy even after I quote scripture that confirms what I am saying. So in reality, Jac3510 is not rejecting my words. He/she is actually rejecting scripture. Let's pick up where I left off on the conversation. The portion below is from Page 4 of this thread.

Actually, I object to the notion that any of the Persons are located anywhere at all. I hold that all three Persons are omnipresent. I take it that you accept the Bible's teaching that God--to be clear, the "guy" Jesus prayed to--is omnipresent. Put simply, that just means He is everywhere. There is nowhere He is not. So God is in heaven. He is also on earth. He's even in Sheol/Hades. He is all around us, everywhere, filling all places and all times.

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
In other words, this is about what you have chosen to believe and not about what is written within God's inspired word, the Bible. CORRECT?

Unless you can support your above statements (bolded in light blue) with scriptures from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, I am afraid I will have to dismiss your above comments as your personal opinion.

You need to present your first four verses of scripture and show me where each of the verses indicate, regarding Jehovah and Jesus Christ, the following: "Put simply, that just means He is everywhere. There is nowhere He is not. So God is in heaven. He is also on earth. He's even in Sheol/Hades. He is all around us, everywhere, filling all places and all times."


I will watch for your scriptures along that line.

[ClassicalTeacher]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
As you can see, Jac3510 objects to my comment that the three "persons" of the trinity are capable of being in different locations simultaneously. Apparently, Jac3510 needs to keep all three "persons" in the same location in order to justify, in his/her mind, that they are the same god. (I have debated Trinitarians at other websites who came up with similarly ridiculous claims that they could never prove with scriptures.) Notice how this unfolds, with Jac3510 using the: "it's what you think" strategy. Jac3510 will continue using the "it's what you think" strategy even after I quote scripture that confirms what I am saying. So in reality, Jac3510 is not rejecting my words. He/she is actually rejecting scripture. Let's pick up where I left off on the conversation. The portion below is from Page 4 of this thread.

Actually, I object to the notion that any of the Persons are located anywhere at all. I hold that all three Persons are omnipresent. I take it that you accept the Bible's teaching that God--to be clear, the "guy" Jesus prayed to--is omnipresent. Put simply, that just means He is everywhere. There is nowhere He is not. So God is in heaven. He is also on earth. He's even in Sheol/Hades. He is all around us, everywhere, filling all places and all times.

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
In other words, this is about what you have chosen to believe and not about what is written within God's inspired word, the Bible. CORRECT?

Unless you can supporting your above statements (bolded in light blue) with scriptures from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, I am afraid I will have to dismiss your above comments as your personal opinion.

You need to present your first four verses of scripture and show me where each of the verses indicate, regarding Jehovah and Jesus Christ, the following: "Put simply, that just means He is everywhere. There is nowhere He is not. So God is in heaven. He is also on earth. He's even in Sheol/Hades. He is all around us, everywhere, filling all places and all times."


I will watch for your scriptures along that line.

This woman does indeed need help. Of course, she keeps insisting that the jw bible is the same as the Judeo-Christian bible. That's like saying that the movie version of "The Time Machine" is the same as the H. G. Wells' book of the same title. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. "FOLKS, DO YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE??" Hahahahaha!!!! She is delusional...and she thinks we're all stupid! Geesh! Like I said, she needs to get a job....

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

This woman does indeed need help.

I think you are right. How should we approach someone so hostile?

FL

[SonofAletheia]

What you are observing is a perfect demonstration of what happens when people refuse to be corrected by the scriptures and decide to put human philosophies and pagan ideologies above what is stated in the Bible. This is how Trinitarians maintain the nonsensical belief in a 3-prong god. They make things up as they go while they kick the Bible to the curb.
[/size][/color]

It's interesting you say this when the Watchtower has a notorious history of tampering with the Bible and coming out with one of the worst translations out there. Just taking a look at the translations to the NWT or to why some verses were changed says so much about the cult. So it seems ironic you would call Christians out for not following the Bible when the Jehovah'a Witnesses are well known for twisting the Bible to their pre-concieved views.

But in Alter2Ego's defense, I haven't seen much Scripture in defense of the Trinity. She has ignored me for the past few weeks (in this thread and in the evolution thread) so someone else should take the lead here.

[Alter2Ego]

Alter2Ego, please read this to get an understanding about which you're arguing against:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
If you have any questions, or don't understand, please ask.

I think you need to understand who we believe Christ is, before you argue against what we believe. Your points against Jac just show me that you really don't understand who Christ is according to scripture.

ALTER2EGO -to- RICKD:
I am well informed on the dogma of trinity.

As a rule, I do not debate moderators. I have not had good experiences with them during debates because they tend to pull the rank card when they have a stake in the debate. For the time being, I will play it by ear.


During debates, I don't do links. So please do the following:

1. Summarize what your source is saying or briefly quote the portion that you want to bring to my attention.

2. Prove what your source is saying with scriptures from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.

3. Be sure and present scriptures that prove the following:

(a) the "hypostatic union"

(b) Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit/holy ghost are "persons" combined into a single "Godhead"

(c) All three "persons" of the trinity are co-equal and co-eternal with the same will and the same intellect AT ALL TIMES.


BTW: I would prefer that we do no more than four verses of scriptures at a time before we move onto another four verses of your choice.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- RICKD:

I just want to say this: If you intend to get emotional about this topic, let me know and I will remove myself from this thread permanently. I am telling you this so that you do not resort to threatening me or resort to posting insults to me. Been there, experienced that at several websites that are Trinitarian moderated.

When I presented evidence of this occurrence to the moderators over at republicanoperative.com, not only did three of the moderators there repeat the behavior, they joined up with the regular members and proceeded to play the roles of cheerleaders. Whenever I directed their attention to posts where regular members were attacking me instead of attacking what I posted, below are examples of how three of the moderators responded.

POST 14, PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 3
WEBLINK: http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... post596746

The fact you're trying to prove your persecution, continue to harp on it instead of moving on, just proves you have a persecution complex. The fact you think that because CT won't engage you in debate is an insult demonstrates ridiculously thin skin. If you want to participate successfully here perhaps you'll discuss the topic at hand instead of trying to prove how much everyone else hates you. You are of course welcome to continue dragging that martyr complex around with you if you like, but a lot of us will find it boring and won't bother engaging you at any level if you do.

POST 271, PAGE 2, PARAGRAPHS 2-4:
WEBLINK: http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... post597740

I already answered you; but since you demand a repeat (not that you practice what you preach), here it is: I DON'T KNOW. In case no one taught you (and I'm not completely sure that anyone did), that's called an HONEST ANSWER. If I truely don't know the details of the scripture that well, I can hardy make the case, can I? However, as I've pointed out twice before, the two questions I asked are much simpler because they involve your belief. And the answers are simple, too: Yes, no, or (gasp) I don't know. You, however, have resorted to weaseling trickery to excuse yourself (I certainly don't excuse you) from answering; either those two questions or a myriad of other questions and points (and pretty much proclaiming that you win because you say you do). Pray, tell me why I shouldn't conclude that you're a bald-face liar and a coward.


But just in case you're NOT a liar and a coward:

1. Do you believe that Jesus is God?
2. Do you believe that Jesus is holy?

PeteS in CA gloated—on the open forum—that they had no intention of stopping the personal attacks against me by regular members (and why should they, since they were part and parcel of the problem?). This likewise gave the regular members the incentive to keep up the "good work."

POST 277, PAGE 28, PARAGRAPHS 2-4:
WEBLINK: http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... post597768

A2E, your victim-playing and Prod-the-Mod games aren't working. 1.) The things Susannah and CT posted on which you keep harping don't come remotely close to violating RO's rules. Using exaggeration like "flaming" doesn't work with people who have seen what that looks like. 2.) FC understands Susannah a bit better than you do, so he probably isn't impressed with your complaints. 3.) If, as is probably the case, RwNj is RO's Most Mellow Mod, FC is probably the second most mellow (he might dispute that, but he's not objective); Prod-the-Mod won't work with him. So, 4.) stop wasting your time with the victim-playing and use that time to respond to people's on-topic posts and carry on discussion with them. The victim-playing displaces opportunities to communicate your message, distracts from that message, and isn't working.

No "threat", explicit or implicit, just tactical advice.

That's the same PeteSinCA that recently joined up here and is now posting in this thread. ClassicalTeacher went back over to republican forum and alerted them that I am now at this website. I guess ClassicalTeacher and PeteSinCA want to pick up where they left off over there--after I decided that I had had enough of their religious intolerance and left them high and dry.


I have been at atheist-moderated websites where the atheist moderators behaved better than the "Christian" moderators behaved at republicanoperative forum. Never have I been at any website (Christian or other wise) where not just one, but three different moderators showed up on the open forum, behaving like those over at republicanoperative.com. Never before seen anything like that. That was a first for me. And I have had accounts at literally dozens of websites across the Internet and been exposed to all types of people.

[RickD]

A2E, you keep mentioning the "Judeo-Christian" bible. Are you referring to a specific translation that you want people to quote?

And also, for the most part, people disagree about these issues because we have different interpretations of scripture. So, when Jac for example asks you why you believe verse x says y, he is trying to see how you came to the interpretation of that verse. Or, if you claim verse x says y, you need to explain why you believe it says that. You can't just say a verse says something without explaining why it says what you believe it says.

[Danieltwotwenty]

In other words, this is about what you have chosen to believe and not about what is written within God's inspired word, the Bible. CORRECT?

As far as I can see of what Jac has written it is what he believes based on what the Bible says, the Bible says God is omnipresent Jeremiah 23:24 and in light of all the passages that affirm the trinity (which I won't list as I really don't want to get drawn into this debate as there are more schooled people already here.) we must conclude that Jesus would be omnipresent also as he is fully divine.

Dan