Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

reply to post by truejew


Okay, then please share the significance of the definite article "hu" in Koine Greek and it's implication to the proper noun it precedes. You said yes.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


As I said before. Phillipians 2 (In English or Greek) does not create a problem for the doctrine of one God when you keep in mind the difference between God without humanity (the Father/Holy Spirit) and God with humanity (the Son of God).

Is the Father Holy and Spirit? Is there only one Spirit? If you answer yes to both, how can the Father not be the Holy Spirit?

reply to post by truejew


The Father refers to the Holy Spirit as "My Spirit" and not "Me". And you did not share the significance of the definite article "hu" in the Greek when used for a proper noun or name.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

The Father refers to the Holy Spirit as "My Spirit" and not "Me".

So is your Father, unholy, not Spirit, or both?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And you did not share the significance of the definite article "hu" in the Greek when used for a proper noun or name.

It does not change the meaning of Phillipians 2.

Double post.

reply to post by truejew


I'm not arguing that there is a "change" needed for Philippians 2:9-11. The Greek signifies there are two entities with the definite article "hu" attributed to them. If the writer believed the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ were one and the same he would have used only one. I never said the Father is unholy, that is a straw man.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

The Greek signifies there are two entities with the definite article "hu" attributed to them. If the writer believed the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ were one and the same he would have used only one.

The Father (God without humanity) and the Son of God (God with humanity). If "hu" was meant to be evidence of three gods/persons, there would have been three mentioned.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I never said the Father is unholy, that is a straw man.

Either the Father is the Holy Spirit or He is not a Holy Spirit. Choose this day which Father you will serve.

reply to post by truejew


No, there would not be 3 mentioned because the verse is talking about the Father and the Son. And if they were one and the same there would only be one definite article. There are two, signifying two distinct things, in this case personages of God.

I don't think you understand Greek like you claimed, this is basic sentence construction.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No, there would not be 3 mentioned because the verse is talking about the Father and the Son. And if they were one and the same there would only be one definite article. There are two, signifying two distinct things, in this case personages of God.

I don't think you understand Greek like you claimed, this is basic sentence construction.

I don't think you understand that the Son of God is different from the Father due to His humanity, not His Spirit. His Spirit is the Father. The Father, being in flesh, humbled Himself as a man. This is called the mystery of godliness.

"16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

The truth is, the true Jewish faith, the early Church, and the Church since sees your separate persons as three gods. There is not one place in Scripture where this trinity doctrine is explained. Trinitarian language is not seen in Church history until around 200AD and can only be traced back to other mystery Babylon religions before that. Your trinity fathers persecuted the early Church by burning them at the stake.
What does their fruit say about them?

"19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:19-23 KJV)

Look at the way the pope and cardinals dress. Add in how they have persecuted the one God Church over the years. Their fruit is the same as the fruit of the Pharisees. Protestant churches may not dress like them, but are guilting of doing some burning at the stake themselves. Not one, one God Christian can be connected to anything like that.

You will know God's people by their fruit.

Originally posted by truejew
Look at the way the pope and cardinals dress. Add in how they have persecuted the one God Church over the years. Their fruit is the same as the fruit of the Pharisees. Protestant churches may not dress like them, but are guilting of doing some burning at the stake themselves. Not one, one God Christian can be connected to anything like that.

You will know God's people by their fruit.

You guys are arguing semantics. Doesn't matter if it's trinitarian or oneness, trinitarians see God as fulfilling 3 roles, it's the same as what you believe, in that the Father fulfills 3 of the same roles. I don't see what the problem is. You can look straight back to the OT and in John 5 Jesus all but yells out all those physical appearences he made as El Shaddai were him so much to the point the jews tried to stone him and throw him off a cliff. Point blank Jesus said he would not leave us orphans, if he had left us orphans this would mean that he is our Father. The important thing to remember is that the Spirit that dwells in Jesus is the Father. I guess i must be the odd man outside looking in because i can see it from both trinitarian and oneness angle and to me both look the same.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


There is a big difference. The trinity doctrine teaches the Father is not Holy Spirit and neither one was manifest in the flesh. They deny that the true Jesus has come in the flesh. The origin of the trinity doctrine is Babylon, not God.

reply to post by truejew

They deny that the true Jesus has come in the flesh. The origin of the trinity doctrine is Babylon, not God.

I don't get that, how can you deny the true Jesus came in the flesh when the book says he plainly did? That doesn't make much sense to me. Thats almost like the muslim denying Jesus is God, that he was just some guy from Galilee even though the bible says that is who he is.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by truejew

 

They deny that the true Jesus has come in the flesh. The origin of the trinity doctrine is Babylon, not God.

I don't get that, how can you deny the true Jesus came in the flesh when the book says he plainly did? That doesn't make much sense to me. Thats almost like the muslim denying Jesus is God, that he was just some guy from Galilee even though the bible says that is who he is.

The true Jesus is the Father, not a second god/person.