Do you know the truth? Is Jesus God? Find out here!

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: DISRAELI
No, the OP was naming early church writers who were themselves using the Bible as the authority for their statements (e.g. Tertullian, Irenaeus), so the dependence upon the Bible was indirect.

Pay no attention to when they don't use the Bible as the authority for their statements and even contradict direct and crystal clear statements in the bible about for example the "soul"? “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) Or inventing things like teaching abstinence from wine, marriage, and possessions as Tatian did? Or any of the stuff discussed in the articles that either contradicts the bible or just isn't taught in the bible. Btw, the video I put in my response to you is littered with bible quotations and references that contradict what the so-called Apostolic Fathers, Church Fathers and apologists (Tertullian, Justin, etc.) taught (or what can be found in their writings) or what's summarized in the OP under 1 and 1A, and the articles also cover 4 and 5 (the OP swapped out the word "soul" with "spirit", a common thing discussed in further detail in my thread "One myth leads to another" where Seede was doing something similar, but I won't bother you with any more details now).

I don't think I can ignore it and attribute it merely (or exclusively) to an overzealous attitude. Besides, did you notice what was mentioned about Tatian for example? Let's repeat it for good measure cause I do admit I couldn't keep it short again the last time (I wanted to bold it before cause it's significant regarding the Trinitarian argument that Jesus is the eternal God without a beginning to his existence).

He believed that the Word, or the Logos, came into existence as the firstborn of the heavenly Father’s works and thereafter was used in the creation of the material universe. (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:13-17)

In other words:

More:
Re: Does Col 1:15 Prove Jesus was created?
Col 115 p2.wmv
Another Look At Col 1:15-18 A Response To MCO4HELP Part1
Another Look At Col 1:15-18 A Response To MCO4HELP part 2
21Crosscheck21 and Colossians (Trinitarian Issue)
Bill and his commentaries Colossians 1

Is is your lack of knowledge why you refuse to understand because you are not aware that both Tatian and Tertullian BOTH in their later years prior to death fell into gnosticism contradicting his earlier writings. However both disciples had earlier written numerous letters and volumes that are inspired....

I also see that you have nothing to say about those disciples who were walking with the Apostle John while he was alive and well and yet found time to write and teach....hmmm.... I wonder if you even know who they are?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: DeathSlayer
So would you agree that Tatian "did not stand fast in the truth" when he as you claim "converted to gnosticism"?

Jesus said of the Devil: “He did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.” (John 8:44) Satan pretends to be “an angel of light,” and the demons masquerade as “ministers of righteousness.” In reality, they are deceivers intent on trapping people in a web of deceit. (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15)

On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future—everlasting life.—2 Timothy 3:15-17. Not the writings of Tatian, Justin, Tertullian and Athanasius who is one of the more influential so-called Church Fathers. But they are useful for comparison and to see where it all went wrong reminding some people of 1 Cor. 1:19,20:

19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.”* [Or “shove aside.”] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?* [That is, an expert in the Law.] Where is the debater of this system of things?* [Or “this age.” See Glossary.] Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

Now you are lying. I did not say this:

So would you agree that Tatian "did not stand fast in the truth" when he as you claim "converted to gnosticism"?

This makes me immediately wonder why you try to twist this? I said prior to his death.... do you know what this means? And you failed as usual to deny and leave out what I said..... Actually the ORIGINAL disciples said to stay away and not to speak with those who teach gnosticism....

It is not my intention for any Christian to fall away from the truth, yet you seem to strive for this.

Like I said a lack of knowledge ..... Your knowledge of the bible is limited.... you need to expand and dig much deeper. Stop reading cliff notes and do your own research and stop relying on others. It is your own "soul" (which I do NOT think you know what a SOUL is refereed as in the bible which depending on who you quote will depend on its meaning.

So again hit those books and then hit the floor on your knees and ask the only MAN and God ..... Jesus for your answers...

Let me guess you no longer believe a man can heal or raise the dead as well? Those spiritual gifts stopped right? WRONG

God bless you and your family.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Actually the ORIGINAL disciples said to stay away and not to speak with those who teach gnosticism....

im afraid not...

Gnosticism wasn't even mentioned in any of their writing

it is said that johns gospel apparently speaks out about gnostic writing... not specifically in the least... and at the most.... speculation

im getting the feeling you don't even know what gnosticism is... Or what its about

If Jesus is the truth, then what question is there, for Jesus to become an answer?

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Now you are lying. I did not say this:

So would you agree that Tatian "did not stand fast in the truth" when he as you claim "converted to gnosticism"?

I just quoted what you said about Tatian from your comment, don't understand the problem or reason for accusing me of lying. The first quotation is from the bible (from Jesus), the 2nd quotation is from you "converted to gnosticism". But since it all seems a bit irrelevant since you didn't answer my question anyway I guess there's no point in asking more questions about what your issue is with that straightforward question.

Unless you think that being converted or converting to gnosticism is 'standing fast in the truth' I'm just going to take a guess that you agree but perhaps you're just "not open to any agreement" and therefore won't acknowledge any agreement even if there was some in your mind.

2 Timothy 3:1-8

3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: whereislogic
At the end of Tatian life he was misled and converted to gnosticism but you knew that already, right?

Let's have another more detailed look at the relevant information related to the question above from the article about Tatian that I linked, even though what's mentioned in the question above does not diminish or negate anything I've been talking about or have been posting in articles and videos. In a way, it 'enhances' it if that's the word I'm looking for. Cause some of the relevant questions that I skipped from the article I'll post here and were answered in the parts that I didn't skip (I just stuck to posting the relevant facts that would allow for an answer to be figured out by whoever bothers to read everything that I'm posting):

True to Paul’s words, the second century C.E. proved to be a time both of change and of the foretold apostasy. Gnosticism, a widespread religious and philosophical movement that polluted the faith of some believers, was on the move. Gnostics believed that spiritual things are good and that all matter is evil. Reasoning that all flesh is evil, they rejected marriage and procreation, claiming that Satan originated these. Some of them believed that since only that which pertains to the spirit is good, it does not matter what a man does with his physical body. Such viewpoints resulted in extreme life-styles, either asceticism or fleshly indulgence. The Gnostic claim that salvation came only from mystical Gnosticism, or self-knowledge, left no room for the truth of God’s Word.

How did professed Christians respond to the threat of Gnosticism? Some learned men spoke out against its erroneous doctrine, while others succumbed to its influence. Irenaeus, for example, embarked on a lifelong struggle against heretical teachings. He had been educated by Polycarp, a man who was a living link to the apostles. Polycarp recommended strong adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Despite having learned under the same tutelage, however, Irenaeus’ friend Florinus lapsed into the teachings of Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement. Those were turbulent times indeed.

Shedding light on the climate of that period are the works of Tatian, a notable writer of the second century. What kind of a man was Tatian? How did he become a professed Christian? And how did Tatian fare under the influence of Gnostic heresy? His intriguing rejoinders and his own example provide valuable lessons for truth-seekers of today.
...[back to the section I quoted earlier]
A Christian or a Heretic?

A careful examination of Tatian’s writings reveals that he was familiar with the Scriptures and had great respect for them. He writes regarding their influence on him: “I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command; I detest fornication; I am not impelled by an insatiable love of gain to go to sea; . . . I am free from a mad thirst for fame . . . The same sun is for all, and one death for all, whether they live in pleasure or destitution.” Tatian admonishes: “Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature.”—Matthew 5:45; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Timothy 6:10.

Consider, however, Tatian’s writing entitled On Perfection According to the Doctrine of the Savior. In this work he attributes matrimony to the Devil. Claiming that individuals would be tying their flesh to the perishable world through marriage, Tatian strongly condemns it.

It appears that about 166 C.E., after the death of Justin Martyr, Tatian either founded or associated with an ascetic sect called the Encratites. Its adherents emphasized strict self-control and mastery of one’s body. They practiced an asceticism requiring abstinence from wine, marriage, and possessions.

Wikipedia mentions he died in 180 AD (C.E.). So 166 C.E. would be 14 years "prior to his death", quoting from your later commentary. Not that it seems relevant to me cause such an act of 'either founding or associating with an ascetic sect called the Encratites' (who held to certain beliefs that matched gnosticism) would always be done 'prior to one's death' as far as I know how human behaviour works (you sort of have to be alive to do such a thing). But just in case anyone gets any wrong impressions about the timing because of how some people might talk about this subject. If you take the dates for his birth from wikipedia, he was 46 in 166 C.E. He died at 60. Not sure if the description "At the end of Tatian life" is entirely appropiate at 46 if you're going to 60. But it's irrelevant, cause it's in the eye of the beholder type of arguing if one wants to go there. Either way, it'll always be "prior to his death", he can't do it after his death. The question "And how did Tatian fare under the influence of Gnostic heresy?" from the article is answered by the historical facts and his own writings. Regardless of his "earlier writings", quoting from your later commentary again, which interestingly show him teaching the following regarding Jesus:

He believed that the Word, or the Logos, came into existence as the firstborn of the heavenly Father’s works and thereafter was used in the creation of the material universe. (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:13-17)

Which is the kind of stuff Trinitarian teachers won't mention when bringing up Tatian's writings and I already hinted at why that is. Wanna see some more of the "earlier writings" or just writings of Tertullian and Clement? I hope you won't reason to yourself that whenever what they're writing isn't tickling your ears that they are not part of the "earlier writings" that you refer to as "inspired" (assuming you mean divinely inspired like I consider Genesis to Revelation to be, the bible).

Here are quotations from Tertullian and Clement regarding either Jesus Christ or something relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity, from their writings when they were defending or teaching what they claimed and believed to be Christianity (just like the stuff quoted from Tatian in the article earlier):

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Is is your lack of knowledge why you refuse to understand because you are not aware that both Tatian and Tertullian BOTH in their later years prior to death fell into gnosticism contradicting his earlier writings. However both disciples had earlier written numerous letters and volumes that are inspired....

Would you categorize Tatian's Address to the Greeks (Oratio ad Graecos) as one of "his earlier writings" that according to you are "inspired", as in divinely inspired truth as Genesis to Revelation is in my eyes? In those writings I could already* find that (*: perhaps he teaches it in other writings as well):

He believed that the Word, or the Logos, came into existence as the firstborn of the heavenly Father’s works and thereafter was used in the creation of the material universe. (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:13-17)

Exactly what the divinely inspired Scriptures also teach but contradictory to what Trinitarians teach nowadays about "the Word" mentioned at John 1:1, i.e. Jesus Christ supposedly being uncreated and eternal. "He came into being..." would be a direct quotation from chapter V, "He" is referring to "the Logos". At the end of that chapter he also equates "brought into existence" with "begotten", showing what he considered that word to mean whenever he read or talked about it as he does earlier in the chapter regarding the Logos ("the Word" mentioned at John 1:1, in Greek it's "Logos"). And yes, I'm well aware of the bible's warning that these guys like to talk in contradictons, so no need to bring up any of those in the same chapter, the statement "He came into being" is crystal clear. Regardless of what Tatian is saying about "with Him" and "in Him, subsists" in the opening of that chapter.

Other writings from Tatian that Wikipedia mentions are the Diatessaron, a "harmony" or synthesis of the four New Testament Gospels into a combined narrative of the life of Jesus and On Perfection according to the Doctrine of the Savior in which as earlier mentioned:

In this work he attributes matrimony to the Devil. Claiming that individuals would be tying their flesh to the perishable world through marriage, Tatian strongly condemns it.

As well as "a work written before the Oratio ad Graecos that contrasts the nature of man with the nature of the animals, and a Problematon biblion, which aimed to present a compilation of obscure Scripture sayings." (quoting wikipedia, Tatian's page)

So do you have some kind of system as to decide which ones you want to view as "inspired"? Or just that which tickles your ears and everything that doesn't such as that the Logos, or the Word came into being/existence, that would then be classified by you as not divinely inspired truth cause it conflicts with Trinitarian teachings that the Word or Logos is the eternal uncreated God that never came into being/existence otherwise He wouldn't be an eternal uncreated God?

When you said this:

Titian, AD 166 - Volume Greeks 7 - Jesus created men and angels with free will. Jesus had foreknowledge of what free agents would do. There is no such thing as fate.

Were you referring to his works called Address to the Greeks? Is that your way of demonstrating that you put some kind of value in these writings, why not the part where he actually teaches the same truths about "the Word" mentioned in John 1:1 as the bible teaches about that subject including places such as Proverbs 8:22-30, Rev. 3:14 and Col.1:13-17 that clearly demonstrate that "the Word", who is Jesus Christ, came into existence as the firstborn of the heavenly Father’s works and thereafter was used in the creation of the material universe, thus matching the teaching that Jesus was the first created being that Jehovah God made and therefore called "begotten"? Nothing to see there?

Note the date you used in that reference, AD 166., approx. when this happened:

It appears that about 166 C.E., after the death of Justin Martyr, Tatian either founded or associated with an ascetic sect called the Encratites. Its adherents emphasized strict self-control and mastery of one’s body. They practiced an asceticism requiring abstinence from wine, marriage, and possessions.

So if you're referring to his writings from that timeperiod anyway...

Just a tiny bit from Tertullian compared to how some modern Trinitarians talk about the Trinity:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (The Forgotten Trinity, by James White, p. 26)

In his essay entitled Against Praxeas Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.”

a reply to: whereislogic

First of all, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul is trying to explain how everything in the flesh (including the human manifestation of God through Jesus) is subject to God the Spirit. Paul is trying to help the new believers make sense of what was written in Psalm 8 and where Jesus fit into it. Jesus even referenced Psalm 8 himself in Matthew 21:16 and again in Matthew 11:25-27.

Here's what else Jesus said in Matthew...

Matthew 21:12-13

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, MY house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Remember when Jesus was being accused of making himself out to be God in John 10:33 by saying these things?...

John 10:17-18

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 10:28-30

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

While Jesus referenced his "Father" many times in a way to get the people to understand where he fit in as both God/man, he was indeed both, but the people (like many today) didn't understand it. So, he not only referenced himself in a way they could understand, but also in a way so not to get himself killed sooner while he spread the gospel of the kingdom and taught his disciples to carry on after he was gone in the flesh, but returned in the Spirit.

Matthew 11:27

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

ETA: Isaiah 44:6 - 6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts (Jesus); I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

(See my comment below too for yet another reference...)

originally posted by: Specimen

If Jesus is the truth, then what question is there, for Jesus to become an answer?

The question would be: How do I get to God so that I might have eternal life in heaven?

John 14:6-7

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The truth is Jesus is a false idol. There is only one true all-powerful all-loving God. And that God is God. The Jews have it right.

So you say the Jews have it right? Right? -- According to biblical history, the high priest who tried Jesus was a Jew and he did not believe in either preexistence or an afterlife. He believed that what you see is what you get. No heaven, no hell, no preexistence and no afterlife. Caiaphas [high priest] was a Sadducee Jew and Sadducee's had nothing but power and money as their god. Is that what you mean as truth?

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Specimen

If Jesus is the truth, then what question is there, for Jesus to become an answer?

The question would be: How do I get to God so that I might have eternal life in heaven?

John 14:6-7

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

So is God a place or a destination..maybe a thing? Is Jesus a way to this God? The Truth of what...a way to this God? And yet, he blocks a way to this...God?

What other ways to this God...like Allah being A Law, which says there another road, path, or way to this...God.

What about the Tao, the Way...which has another route to this...God or in it pov, Heavens!?

a reply to: Specimen

So is God a place or a destination..maybe a thing? Is Jesus a way to this God? The Truth of what...a way to this God? And yet, he blocks a way to this...God?

What other ways to this God...like Allah being A Law, which says there another road, path, or way to this...God.

What about the Tao, the Way...which has another route to this...God or in it pov, Heavens!?

According to the Bible, God is the creator and ruler of all things. He is a personal God who loves mankind (whom he created) in order to share a personal relationship and to eventually live together for eternity in Heaven (an actual place) after this life on earth is over. But it's up to us, through our free will, to accept or reject his personal invitation for salvation and eternal life. Jesus is THE WAY to God, as he is God, who came in the flesh (the physical manifestation of God) and died a human death for our sins, so this would be possible. Corrupt man is not capable of entering a perfect Heaven without first being made clean and incorruptible through Jesus. We can only accomplish this by asking Jesus to forgive us of our sin and accept him as our personal Lord and Savior, acknowledging that without the blood he shed for us, there is no eternal life.

John 3:15-18

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

According to Jesus, there is no other path and no other way to get to Heaven. In John 10:7-11, Jesus said any other way was an attempt to steal or rob their way in, which will not lead to eternal life.

John 10:7-11

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

a reply to: Deetermined
You seem to show little interest in the bolded parts of the comment you were responding to. And to have more interest for the arguments often made by Trinitarians that demonstrate this routine:

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.

...[followed by a discussion about John 1:1 some of which I quoted earlier in this thread]

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

Source: Is Jesus God?

Just so you know, I'm only seeing more reasons for concluding that the doctrine of the Trinity is false from the bible verses you quoted (including the teaching that Jesus is the eternal God that Jesus himself refers to as "my God" and "my Father"; always talking about him as if he's talking about someone else, another individual, a "different being" using Tertullian's words). I could go through responding to them regarding what I'm noticing that you're not mentioning because it doesn't support the Trinitarian arguments you are making, but I have a feeling you're not very interested in what I would say about it or emphasize anyway. Some of it is pretty straightforward, like not skipping past phrases such as "it is written" to ignore what Jesus is doing there and who he's quoting. Simple things like that, noticing that if you receive a commandment from someone else that logically implies that you are not that other individual that is giving you that commandment. And what's so hard to understand about the simple fact that Jehovah God cannot die, hence Jehovah God cannot 'lay down his life' for anyone.

a reply to: whereislogic

This obviously is going to have to be explained in baby steps.

Why do you think God said, "Let us make man in OUR image" as stated in Genesis 1:26?

What/who do you think Isaiah 44: 6 is talking about when it says, "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."?

What/who do you think Revelation 1:7-8 is talking about when it says: "7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

What/who do you think Revelation 22:12-13: "12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

What/who do you think Revelation is talking about in Revelation 22:3-4: "3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads."

You have to ask yourself, who is the "redeemer", the one who "comes quickly", and the "Lamb" in the Bible? In the last verse I posted, as also in Isaiah 44:6, how do you combine two to make one God? Clearly, Jesus is stating that he is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Revelation 22:4 doesn't say that their servants will serve them, it says "his" servants will serve "him". How do you think that works exactly?

There's a reason that the statement in Deuteronomy 6:4 was made throughout the Bible, they didn't understand how it worked either, so you're not alone.

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

Exodus 6:3

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

Mark 12:29

9 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic
This obviously is going to have to be explained in baby steps.

Why, if the Trinity is "not a biblical doctrine" as some Trinitarians themselves acknowledge, there's no good reason to teach it and go through your set of misinterpreted bible verses that people have been conditioned with that they supposedly provide some sort of evidence that the Trinity doctrine or some aspects of it are taught in the bible. When it's still "not a biblical doctrine" (in any sense). I understand perfectly what's going on here. No need to go through the standard philosophical naturalism route where they like to argue 'you just don't understand' (science or evolutionary philosophies, which are often conflated as well) like they do on the Origins and Creationism subforum all the time.

I understand every argument and verse that Trinitarians like to use in their argumentation, I also have a response for each and every one and could share it with you if you wanted to hear it. But you won't "put up with" it (2 Timothy 4:3,4), you will not accept my answers even if they make perfect sense. Instead, just like you did in your last comment, you'll move on to your next set of cards to play, always ignoring any text that I might bring up that further clarifies things like who Jehovah was talking to at Genesis 1:26. Which can already be understood from what I've mentioned so far about Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation" (Col.1:15), the first creation by Jehovah God, the first created being, "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev. 3:14; see also Revelation 1:5 for identification of “the Faithful Witness”). Which is explained in further detail in the set of videos I shared that start with the videos entitled "The created Messiah". All the while being very fond of bible translations that remove the name Jehovah and replace it with the generic title "the LORD" or "the Lord" to muddy the waters some more. I also don't feel like spending too much time on responding to people quoting things that aren't even what the bible really says.

The Hebrew word for "lord" does not appear in Isaiah 44:6 in the oldest most reliable Hebrew manuscripts, but you don't care. You'll quote it that way anyway, just like the other verses you've been using so far where it originally had the divine name often rendered as "Jehovah" in English translations, which immediately shows each and every one of the verses you used not to work as an argument for Trinitarianism (or Binitarianism for that matter). Besides, I've been through most of them on this forum on several occasions.

If anyone is interested in a more detailed response, almost all of them are listed here with a response:
Trinity: Reasoning

For example:

Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

Savior: ...

God:...
...If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Revelation 1:8 (NW):

8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

a reply to: whereislogic

LOL! You are lost! Bible verses make for sound biblical doctrine, you should try reading them sometime!

Explain Exodus 6:3...

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

The problem is you really can't answer any of my questions!

Theres simple answers to every trinity argument.... but its a waste of time debating it because trinitarians hold to what they've been taught all their lives regardless of what the bible actually says

Fact is there is no trinity in the bible... Jesus didn't teach it, nor did any of the apostles

a reply to: whereislogic

Isaiah 45:23 (Old Testament)
"I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance."

Philippians 2:10-11 (New Testament)
"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Zechariah 12:10 (Old Testament)
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Your denial will never change the obvious!

originally posted by: Akragon
Theres simple answers to every trinity argument.... but its a waste of time debating it because trinitarians hold to what they've been taught all their lives regardless of what the bible actually says

Fact is there is no trinity in the bible... Jesus didn't teach it, nor did any of the apostles

LOL! Yeah, both of you have such simple answers that you never give them! The trinity is listed in black and white in the Bible!