The Dive Bible

@divegeester said
Did you read my post?

Yes.
You are terribly fabricating something that isn't there.

Answer this:

Why didn't Jesus correct Peter?

@chaney3 said
Yes.
You are terribly fabricating something that isn't there.

So you read my post and took nothing from it other than that you think I am “fabricating” something?

You didn’t read the parts about “son”?!

@divegeester said
So you read my post and took nothing from it other than that you think I am “fabricating” something?

Jesus is not God.

He would have said so.

@chaney3 said
Jesus is not God.

He would have said so.

Jesus never said He was God.

Never.

@chaney3 said
Jesus is not God.

He would have said so.

Every time I write a lengthy considered post to you, which I’ve done several times, you just ignore the content. What I wrote for you is a sound explaination and you don’t even bother to read it. This is why myself and other posters find you shallow and immature in your thinking.

I’m going to leave you to your farty blitherings.

@chaney3 said
Jesus never said He was God.

Never.

The “trinity” doesn’t exist, it’s a made up way of explaining the godhead.

The “godhead” is a term use to describe the multifaceted nature of the manifestations of God.

We know God existed as spirit and as a man, Jesus. So in reality there is the dual nature of God to be considered. However oneness people such as myself believe in the OT statement “hear of Israel, the lord your god in one”. So trinity doesn’t even come into it, there is either one or there is two. Can you see that?

Ok, now once you are at that point you have to look at the trinitarian terms “father” “son” “holy ghost” and immediately acknowledge that, based on the above rational that there is a duality, then at least one of these must therefore be obsolete.

Well we know God is spirit and we know there was a son, so therefore the term “father” must be obsolete. Well that can’t be true either because we know God is a father, Jesus referred to him as such. Hmmm

Ok how about this: god is a father a son a brother a husband a bride and friend? All of these are presented in scripture. So God is 6?? Certainly not. Of course not. What we can do is discard the family nouns as useful terms to describe the godhead.

What we are left with is ONE spirit. Who is all of these things to each of us and to mankind over the millennia. He is all in all, he is everything to us. But he has revealed himself as a man as a son, as a brother etc. He is one god revealed in many ways and described in many ways, but he is certainly ONE.

Not 2 not 3 and not 6. One.

@divegeester said
The “trinity” doesn’t exist, it’s a made up way of explaining the godhead.

The “godhead” is a term use to describe the multifaceted nature of the manifestations of God.

We know God existed as spirit and as a man, Jesus. So in reality there is the dual nature of God to be considered. However oneness people such as myself believe in the OT statement “hear of Israel, ...[text shortened]... ed in many ways and described in many ways, but he is certainly ONE.

Not 2 not 3 and not 6. One.

And that is, exactly, the trinity doctrine that you say you do not believe in.

I get that you want to appear 'hip' and not a religionist. But your belief in God is nearly the same as mine. I am not a 'religionist' but I am a Trinitarian.

And so are you.

@fmf said
Oh gosh. Are you now going to claim you have no idea of the nature or track record of the poster called chaney3 after four years and thousands and thousands of posts on the Spirituality Forum? You think he might be divegeester's "proxy"? Gosh.

Oh gosh.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The son of Zorro becomes Zorro.

Same banana.

Do you know where this phrase came from? "Same banana." I've heard this before a few times. I figure if anyone in this forum would know the etymology of this, it would be you. So just wondering.

@suzianne said
And that is, exactly, the trinity doctrine that you say you do not believe in.

No it isn’t, far from it.

The trinity doctrine is based on THREE distinct persons, people, personalities locked together somehow and yet revealed separately.

What I believe is ONE person, ONE entity, revealed in multiple manifestations.

One person is not the same as three persons. Is it?

If suspect that what is going on in your head/heart is that you get witness that the discription which is offer is correct but do not want to let go of your “trinity” definition.

@suzianne said
I get that you want to appear 'hip' and not a religionist.

I have no intention whatsoever of “appearing” anything at all. For ten years I’ve been posting what I believe with complete honestly and scriptural reference.

@suzianne said
I am not a 'religionist' but I am a Trinitarian.

And so are you.

No, I most certainly am not. I have explained why I am not a trinitarian dozens of times and have just done so again it the post above.

@divegeester said
No it isn’t, far from it.

The trinity doctrine is based on THREE distinct persons, people, personalities locked together somehow and yet revealed separately.

What I believe is ONE person, ONE entity, revealed in multiple manifestations.

One person is not the same as three persons. Is it?

If suspect that what is going on in your head/heart is that you get wi ...[text shortened]... at the discription which is offer is correct but do not want to let go of your “trinity” definition.

It is YOU who define Trinity so that you can oh-so-righteously rise 'above it' with YOUR belief.

What you describe as 'Trinity' is simple polytheism. What you are describing as YOUR belief *IS* Trinity. But you can't have it because you've been railing for so long against what you THINK Trinity is, that you refuse anything with that tagline, just because of the tag itself.

@suzianne said
It is YOU who define Trinity so that you can oh-so-righteously rise 'above it' with YOUR belief.

It is sonship, you and others who tell me that
God is three distinct persons. Take it up with him, them and yourself if you are not aligned.

@suzianne said
What you describe as 'Trinity' is simple polytheism.

As it is what sonship believes and not what I believe, why don’t you take it up with sonship instead of me?

Oh, that right...he’s your buddy.