"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:46bb4b53$0$20172$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> "Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:f9dedp030g4@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Vernono O wrote:
>>> "Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f9cu7n01p0t@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>> Vernono O wrote:
>>>>> "Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f9bii40o2s@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> Vernono O wrote:
>>>>>>> "Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f9bdce118rg@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>> Vernono O wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:f9bc4s0i36@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Vernono O wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Correct, only that The Father, the spirit and the son are
>>>>>>>>> omnipotent,
>>>>>>>>> omnipresent ant omniscient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AND????
>>>>>>>>> Are any of the three above other than as defined?
>>>>>>>>> There is one God.
>>>>>>>>> Disagree? If so, you are neither Christian or Jew.
>>>>>>>> Your conclusions are based on delusion, and wrong too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are any of the three as defined?
>>>>>> Your definition of "One" is based on trinity doctrine, not scripture.
>>>>>> Your definition of "God" is based on trinity doctrine, not scripture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is your conclusion that is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the Spirit of God IS God, not a 'person' of a triune Being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, There is no Child of any being which is not the same Essence
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Nature as the Parent: Therefore, Jesus the Son of God is the same
>>>>>> Essence and Nature of His Father, God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God the Father is Eternal Spirit, therefore the Son is Eternal
>>>>>> Spirit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God the Father is Omnipotent, therefore the Son is Omnipotent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God the Father is (Being Type) Deity, therefore the Son of God is
>>>>>> (being
>>>>>> type) Deity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God the Father gave His Son ALL Power and ALL authority and told Him
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> reign: Therefore the Son is (Title of Authority) God. Ps 110:1-2, Mt
>>>>>> 24:28, 1 Cor 15:24-28.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glenn
>>>>>> His witness
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you are playing semantic games with the end result being
>>>>> dissension.
>>>>> Sounds demon possessed to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just defined or explained, very specifically what SOME call the
>>>>> trinity.
>>>>> Get your head and soul in tune with the gospel and forget the
>>>>> dissension.
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably (definitely) should change churches.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You reject Scriptural Definition as given in God's Word to cling to
>>>> definition given in false doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> There is none so blind as one who will not see.
>>>> 2 Thes 2: 10-12
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> No YOU reject common use of ENGLISH, only to be argumentative.
>>
>> Telling you that the doctrine of a triune god is false doctrine is being
>> argumentative...?
>
> Yes, since triune God or any reference to it doesn't exist. You use the
> phrase with your unimaginitive definition and argue endlessly.
>
>>
>> Ummmmm... NO.
>>
>> What YOU should do, is accept the Truth I tell you, and stop YOUR
>> argument.
>>
>>> Your hate is making you blind.
>>> "Scriptural definition"????
>>> As given in God's word?????
>>>
>>> Those two phrases alone are subject to interpretation in English.
>>
>> Which, certainly means that you are being argumentative for no other
>> reason than to prevent communication.
>
> You make up imaginitive definitions, only to argue.
>
>>
>>
>> Jesus said, "God is a Spirit..." John 4:24 KJV
>
> O.K. God is spirit.
> God IS.
> God is "I am"
>
>>
>> THAT is giving a definition...
>> ...A SCRIPTURAL definition...
>
> Only if you know what spirit is other than not being physical.
> So?
>
>>
>> Jesus just DEFINED the Being of God as TYPE Spirit...but there is _NO_
>> scripture describing or defining God as a triune being.
>
> Where did Jesus say, in ANY context, TYPE spirit.
This is what happens if you argue with a heretic too long; you start to lose
sight of what's really essential.
Glenn just said that Jesus defined the being of God as "spirit". Fine. But
John, who is just as inspired an author when he wrote his other New
Testament works as he was when he wrote this gospel, informs that God is
love: 1 John 4:8, 16.
Now we all know that "love" is something immaterial. You can't see God's
selfless concern for your well-being except as it influences events that we
can see. It's like the biblical analogy of the wind moving through the
leaves telling us something about the Holy Spirit. We can't see the Holy
Spirit like we can't see the wind, but we can see both by the effect they
have on what we can see. It's the same with selfless love; because it's
immaterial in nature, we can't see it except as we see its effect on the
things we can see. So then there is no problem or inconsistency between God
being spirit and God being love. Both spirit and love are immaterial.
But if John has said something by recording the speech of Jesus saying God
is spirit, then he has also said something about the sort of spirit God is
in saying God is love. And it's CRITICAL that we take note of the word John
uses for "love", which is "agape", and which means "selfless love". Why is
this so important?
Because we're talking not about the character of God now, but the BEING of
God, the essence of God that can't ever change; and THIS means that God has
been selfless love for eternity past! In fact we can rightly say that an
eternity passed with God being selfless love BEFORE God ever created
anything to love selflessly.
So if God is not a being of multiple persons selflessly loving one another
throughout all of eternity past, how is it that God is selfless love as an
essential property of His being before He created anything to love??
It turns out that John the Apostle saying that the being of God is
essentially selfless love REQUIRES that God consist in more than one eternal
person.
Of course Glenn has had this demonstrated to him long ago, but he would
rather take an irrational position than change his heretical belief as to
the nature of God. It's not ignorance, or stupidity; it's pure
stubbornness. So I didn't interject this here with any hope that Glenn
might be benefited by it; I just wanted to share with you the logical
implications of God "being" love. Nothing that is only one person can be
selfless love. Selfless love can only exist as a RELATIONSHIP between two
or more persons. Scripture reveals God is three persons, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.
Chuck Stamford
>
>>
>> There is _NO_ scripture describing Jesus as a person of a multiple
>> personality being.
>
> Having NOTHING to do with whatever you think triune means or God
> presenting Himself in different forms at different times to different
> people and for different reasons.
>
> Biblically, God is a burning bush, hmmmm
> Maybe that's the fourth "person"
> Oh, yes we have this old "man God" sitting in a "throne" in heaven. I
> guess during that time there is no use in praying because God is then not
> omnipresent.
>
>>
>>
>> Don't argue, Vernono.
>>
>>
>> Glenn
>> His witness
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
|
|